|
Alien Rope Burn posted:I'm always amused by OSR choosing to describe itself as a "movement" as if it were something more than just a fundamentalist choice about what rules you use for gnomes. To be a movement - in the sense of a social movement - they'd have to want to change something, but that's precisely what they don't want to do. At best they've gotten more older D&D clones published, but it's not like that wasn't something that's been going on for the past 40 years. To be a movement, there has to be something to struggle against, and it's not like anybody can stop them from exulting in level limits and labyrinthine requirements to play a bard. It's just a means for them to claim false gravitas when it's really just a question of whether or not ascending AC makes you dumber. OSR is about endlessly circling the same handful of booklets from the 1970s, forever digging through the Temple Of The Frog, fighting random monsters and picking up Treasure Types B and F, and that's all it can ever be.
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:25 |
|
|
So what OSR really stands for is reactionary. Renaissance actually made things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Whilst I'm not the biggest fan isn't stuff like Stars Without Number considered "OSR" too, at least taking similar mechanics and playstyles and putting them in new contexts?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
JackMann posted:It's kind of hilarious how the ultra-orthodox OSR guys don't realize how badly they're preventing growth of their "movement" as they alienate anyone who isn't perfectly aligned with their politics and beliefs on game design. They don't seem to get that someone might like more than one kind of game, and treat other people enjoying things they don't like as a personal attack. There are plenty of people who, for reasons of nostalgia or just to get the old school experience, would be happy to try out some OSR, but they're so hostile to outsiders, I can't help but think they're driving a certain number of people away. They certainly succeeded in driving me away, for one. I originally walked away from my own blog (where I mostly just posted critters and magic items) in a combination of burnout, some personal issues, and getting a sense there were battlelines being drawn that I didn't want to get involved in. I made a few attempts to start up again but the whole "OSR" thing was and is just so toxic -- and getting worse -- that I just can't be arsed to go back and throw myself in that cesspit. I stopped posting because of stress, starting up again will bring all of that back and then some, with god only knows what tacked on besides.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
JackMann posted:It's kind of hilarious how the ultra-orthodox OSR guys don't realize how badly they're preventing growth of their "movement" as they alienate anyone who isn't perfectly aligned with their politics and beliefs on game design. They don't seem to get that someone might like more than one kind of game, and treat other people enjoying things they don't like as a personal attack. There are plenty of people who, for reasons of nostalgia or just to get the old school experience, would be happy to try out some OSR, but they're so hostile to outsiders, I can't help but think they're driving a certain number of people away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Whilst I'm not the biggest fan isn't stuff like Stars Without Number considered "OSR" too, at least taking similar mechanics and playstyles and putting them in new contexts? Yes, although I get the distinct impression that the grogs we talk about here like those games purely out of their association to the OSR more than anything else, as if their quality was owed to the D&D foundation. RPGPundit has not reviewed Beyond the Wall, nor Into the Odd, and his review of Stars Without Number was harped more on how similar it was to B/X rather than as a branching out, and he did dock points off of Scarlet Heroes precisely because he felt the solo gaming and sandbox style was too open-ended and different from 'traditional' D&D. I guess my point is that designers like Kevin Crawford are successful in spite of the OSR, not because of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:So what OSR really stands for is reactionary. Renaissance actually made things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:06
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:So what OSR really stands for is reactionary. Renaissance actually made things. quote:It's like Renaissance Europe, sure people loved them old Greek and Roman stuff to a massive extent and quoted it left and right but there weren't legions marching around Florence and nobody was reading animal guts to tell the future. In a lot of ways the OSR has developed enough now that it's something that you can distinguish from "how most people played D&D in the 80's and 90's." This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Old School Renaissance is neither old, nor a school, nor a Renaissance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
Once upon a time the Drow were a feared and dangerous opponent in D&D. They were rare, graceful, and deadly and they could slaughter the PCs if they were not careful. Successive versions of D&D have toned them down to where mechanically they are a bad joke compared to their former glory. The Drizzt books have not helped along with the push to make them a PC race and events like 3.0’s Drow come to the surface. Generally I do not allow Drow PCs as I want them rare and mysterious. Half the time my players are not even sure if Drow exist in my campaigns. You will never encounter one on the surface with the very very rare exception of an isolated elven settlement on a moonless night where the Drow raid perhaps once a decade or even century. For the greater glory of Lolth. What made Drow deadly in the good old days was a combination of their equipment, poison, spell like abilities and real magic resistance. AD&D has been dead now for 15 years but back then magic resistance was expressed as a % roll. Drow were 50% resistant to magic +2% per level. A level 10 Drow fighter had MR of 70%. If a spell caster failed that roll (71%+) their spell would ail to effect the Drow whatsoever and the Drow cloaks gave a +6 save bonus vs a fire based attacks. The early Drizzt books do a reasonable job at describing the way the Drow worked at the time. MR scaled in 1E but was a static number in 2E. At higher levels it meant having a fighter type around was useful due to things like Mind Flayers with 90% MR. For arguments sake to toughen up Drow to their former glory in the 5E rules I would add superior MR to the game and I would consider adding this for Dragons as well. I would have a tactic number and a d20 roll is used. Roll equal to or higher than the MR number your spell woks, roll lower and the creature is immune to the spell effects. For Drow this means a number of 11. If you wanted to scale it the number would rise by 1 at CR 3,5,7,9 etc. A CR9 Drow would have an MR number of 15 and in effect be 70% immune to magic. Drow equipment can more or less use the optional sidebar in the MM. Drow poison could use a higher DC perhaps in the good old days it was in effect DC20 but saves work a bit different now. A 2-4 point buff in poison DCs would work. Drow could also have +1 equipment for CR 1-5, 6-11 +2 and CR 12+ gets +3 equipment and each Drow has Drow cloak and boots as well which function as cloaks and boots of elven kind but use the table on page 126 of the MM. I will use the Gladiator(page 346) tweaked as a basis of an elite Drow warrior. I will swap the dex and strength scores around for example.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
taichara posted:I made a few attempts to start up again but the whole "OSR" thing was and is just so toxic -- and getting worse -- that I just can't be arsed to go back and throw myself in that cesspit. I stopped posting because of stress, starting up again will bring all of that back and then some, with god only knows what tacked on besides. It's quickly getting to the point that the only people left in the OSR are those whose entire identity is wrapped up in old-school D&D, and they are the most obstinate and toxic elements of it, and are only succeeding in being lovely gatekeepers to a hobby that does not belong to them nor did they inherit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
You know, I guess the hard magic resistance thing probably WAS another of AD&D's soft limits on wizzard supremacy. Did 3E have anything similar other than regular saving throws?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
I'm just reminded of my favorite definition of fundamentalism, which is to yearn back to a golden age which - and this is the important part - never existed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
I might be wrong, but I remember the OSR being a thing to address the world's dwindling old-school D&D books "problem." But now that you can go into a Barnes & Noble or DrivethruRPG and get the actual old material, they're entirely superfluous. On the other hand, the Oldhammer people are rapidly becoming my favorite tabletop subculture. It's just reminiscing over cool things from an era when Games Workshop was much more creative, without any pretense that they're doing good for God and Gary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
moths posted:On the other hand, the Oldhammer people are rapidly becoming my favorite tabletop subculture. It's just reminiscing over cool things from an era when Games Workshop was much more creative, without any pretense that they're doing good for God and Gary. It also helps that the Oldhammer people are united in their complete and utter confusion as to what the gently caress Games Workshop is smoking.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Did 3E have anything similar other than regular saving throws? Pretty much the opposite. Many, many monsters from mid-level onward couldn't be harmed by non-magical weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Claytor posted:Pretty much the opposite. Many, many monsters from mid-level onward couldn't be harmed by non-magical weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
moths posted:I might be wrong, but I remember the OSR being a thing to address the world's dwindling old-school D&D books "problem." To be fair, I suspect OSR is part of the reason those older books are now available. They did point to a demand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
It seems like there's a good handful of OSR-creators who don't really give a poo poo about OSR-the-movement; they just want to dabble in some different systems and genres. Likewise, I think most players of OSR games don't actually give any shits about OSR-the-movement. I know a few of them. I guess I'm just leery of burying the entire OSR in poo poo when, even if they sling their toxicity far and wide, it's mostly a couple dozen people ruining it for everyone else.Nessus posted:You know, I guess the hard magic resistance thing probably WAS another of AD&D's soft limits on wizzard supremacy. Did 3E have anything similar other than regular saving throws? There was spell resistance, which functioned in a similar way—except, it was usually a pretty low number and you added a handful of pumpable modifiers to your d20 roll to overcome it. Even the beefiest spell resistance creatures, that you would typically only encounter when you're creeping up towards level 20, would have spell resistance numbers of around 25-30. Meanwhile, you're adding your level (15-20) to your roll, plus whatever other random rear end modifiers you picked up for that exact purpose because your DM has been throwing spell resistance at you. It's obvious they didn't want to make it too hard for a wizard to keep casting spells, because "stop doing what you picked this class to do" is boring. Somehow, they chose one of the most rear end ways to fix that problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
D&D 3.5 : After so many iterations they got it right. Only Pathfinder (which is the same) compares. All D&D before is weaker. All D&D after that are dumbed down versions for children who couldn't play nethack.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:It seems like there's a good handful of OSR-creators who don't really give a poo poo about OSR-the-movement; they just want to dabble in some different systems and genres. Likewise, I think most players of OSR games don't actually give any shits about OSR-the-movement. I know a few of them. I guess I'm just leery of burying the entire OSR in poo poo when, even if they sling their toxicity far and wide, it's mostly a couple dozen people ruining it for everyone else. I'm comfortable writing "OSR, the movement" off while keeping an open mind towards "people who enjoy playing old-school D&D derived elfgames." The people who are the biggest boosters of the OSR as some sort of movement or stand against the rise of entitled storygamers who can't appreciate THAC0 like Gygax intended are almost invariably insufferable. Meanwhile some people just like playing older D&D games and manage to do so without being a jerk about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
I make adventures for my players that I think will be fun. I don't give a bloody poo poo about accidentally "appropriating" some stupid loving "cultural" thing that will make some brain dead moronic social justice warrior's rear end bleed. We are playing a meaningless game for FUN where you pretend to be a loving elf or some other stupid poo poo. If you manage to be culturally offended in the process.... get the gently caress over yourself and get the gently caress out of my game. So, there you go, That's my view on "cultural appropriation in gaming"
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:It seems like there's a good handful of OSR-creators who don't really give a poo poo about OSR-the-movement; they just want to dabble in some different systems and genres. Likewise, I think most players of OSR games don't actually give any shits about OSR-the-movement. I know a few of them. I guess I'm just leery of burying the entire OSR in poo poo when, even if they sling their toxicity far and wide, it's mostly a couple dozen people ruining it for everyone else. Oh sure. There's nothing really wrong with OSR itself. If that's the sort of game someone wants to play, they shouldn't feel bad for playing it, certainly. The only games I would actually get on someone for enjoying are ones like FATAL or Nymphology where they have something actually offensively racist, sexist, or otherwise horrible about them. I just have a problem with the people who have become the face of the OSR movement and how they present it. They make it an opposition to other games, not an alternative. It's not "Hey, guys! Here's some fun games. You remember how you loved 1e Dungeons and Dragons? We've made something like that that you can play!" Instead, it's "All other games are completely horrible, and you're horrible if you like them. If you make those games, you're literally trying to kill the lobby with cultural marxism. Real roleplayers only play OSR and OSR-like games." Anyone who plays OSR games because they genuinely enjoy them, and don't get upset that other people like other things, are just fine in my book.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:There was spell resistance, which functioned in a similar way—except, it was usually a pretty low number and you added a handful of pumpable modifiers to your d20 roll to overcome it. Even the beefiest spell resistance creatures, that you would typically only encounter when you're creeping up towards level 20, would have spell resistance numbers of around 25-30. Meanwhile, you're adding your level (15-20) to your roll, plus whatever other random rear end modifiers you picked up for that exact purpose because your DM has been throwing spell resistance at you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
JackMann posted:I just have a problem with the people who have become the face of the OSR movement and how they present it. They make it an opposition to other games, not an alternative. It's not "Hey, guys! Here's some fun games. You remember how you loved 1e Dungeons and Dragons? We've made something like that that you can play!" Instead, it's "All other games are completely horrible, and you're horrible if you like them. If you make those games, you're literally trying to kill the lobby with cultural marxism. Real roleplayers only play OSR and OSR-like games." This is it exactly. My problem with the OSR as a movement is that its biggest champions are less about "These games are cool and fun, come give them a try!" and more about "Those games are dumb and suck and are for entitled casual babies who aren't TRUE roleplayers like us, the keepers of Gygax's legacy!" That guy nursing a five year grudge over being banned from RPGnet and consequently refusing to offer information to someone trying to learn more about the OSR while simultaneously lambasting Shannon for being some Johnny-come-lately while he was busy painstakingly reinventing old D&D from emails or something? That's the face of the OSR right there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
potatocubed posted:In my case it's less about the sexism and more that within the context of the OSR this is Yet Another Monster From Woman's Genitals. Like, the whole goddamn movement is drowning in body horror sex beasts and after hearing this woman trumpeted as one of the greatest OSR writers there is, it made me roll my eyes a bit to trip over this pretty much right away. Slimnoid posted:It's quickly getting to the point that the only people left in the OSR are those whose entire identity is wrapped up in old-school D&D, and they are the most obstinate and toxic elements of it, and are only succeeding in being lovely gatekeepers to a hobby that does not belong to them nor did they inherit. I can't find it now, but on a blog I used to quote, the author proudly posted his recently painted minis...of a naked woman chained to an altar with robed cultists looming over her. He said "To me, it's just not good-old-fashioned D&D without sexy chained slave babes!" This guy is not a lonely shut-in, either, he's married with kids.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I make adventures for my players that I think will be fun. I don't give a bloody poo poo about accidentally "appropriating" some stupid loving "cultural" thing that will make some brain dead moronic skeleton warrior's rear end bleed. We are playing a meaningless game for FUN where you pretend to be a loving elf or some other stupid poo poo. If you manage to be culturally offended in the process.... get the gently caress over yourself and get the gently caress out of my game. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Wow. WOW. That's, uh, that's certainly something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Are those supposed to be Orcs, or jade statues?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I can't find it now, but on a blog I used to quote, the author proudly posted his recently painted minis...of a naked woman chained to an altar with robed cultists looming over her. He said "To me, it's just not good-old-fashioned D&D without sexy chained slave babes!" This guy is not a lonely shut-in, either, he's married with kids. I know about 4 guys like this, and they are all regular dudes in regular relationships with regular women who suddenly go into Horndog Overdrive whenever any mention of attractive ladies comes up. Clearly, at some level, this bothers them. They wanted to be Big Ridiculous Alpha Males with Supermodel Conquests at some point, never got to do it, and now they have psychic baggage leaking out of their brain for the rest of their lives. It's actually kind of a bummer for them. The black onyx statue head and my face pretty much have the same expression.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Are those supposed to be Orcs, or jade statues? Black peo- I mean... uh... orcs that are totally not supposed to look like anything in the real world, nosiree
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Let's check in on our favorite TTRPG adaptation project, Pathfinder Online! It's getting close to release, so the reviews are starting to appear. Here's one: http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/719/view/reviews/load/395/page/1 Final score: 4.5. Which would be pretty good if it was an Uber driver or an SA thread, but alas it is out of a possible ten.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
If you haven't followed that saga, the original reviewer, a friend of Ryan Dancy, tossed the assignment to his underling, citing such (paraphrased) reasons as "the game is too poo poo to keep playing, but I haven't played enough to give it a full review" and "I don't want to give my friend's product a less than 5 review". Prior to the full review, Ryan complained about how no one seemed to be capable of objectively reviewing PFS, because none of them understood the vision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
senrath posted:Prior to the full review, Ryan complained about how no one seemed to be capable of objectively reviewing PFS, because none of them understood the vision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
The OSR is a bit like corners of the music scene (punk and rock mostly)- good stuff is made there but there are also a lot of people hung up on purity, authenticity, cults of personality (living or dead), and a general disdain for the new. Working with old tools that may or may not have been prematurely discarded is cool. Shaking your fist at the unclean enemy that must be purged is what assholes do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Hey, I realize this is definitely the wrong place to ask, but I follow this thread and it's pretty active and non of the stickied threads seem like they'd be more appropriate to my question either so - is there a thread somewhere that deals with people who are completely new to dnd/tabletop gaming/whatever you should call it and are interested in starting and give recommendations how to do that? <- this is not a quote, it is my earnest request.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
The chat thread is occasionally derailed into a semi-serious discussion, it's as good a place to ask as any. e: What sort of stuff are you interested in? Something like D&D, horror, what? It'll be easier to give you recommendations if they know what sort of thing you like. Tulul fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
an overdue owl posted:Hey, I realize this is definitely the wrong place to ask, but I follow this thread and it's pretty active and non of the stickied threads seem like they'd be more appropriate to my question either so - is there a thread somewhere that deals with people who are completely new to dnd/tabletop gaming/whatever you should call it and are interested in starting and give recommendations how to do that? <- this is not a quote, it is my earnest request. The monthly general chat thread might be the most appropriate, at least when it's not in GBS-lite mode. (It is currently not.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Let's check in on our favorite TTRPG adaptation project, Pathfinder Online! It's getting close to release, so the reviews are starting to appear. Here's one: Can I mention how amusing it is that, based on the article comments, a 4.5/10 is considered a crushingly awful score instead of slightly below average?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
At this point I think GMS and Far West belong firmly in this thread. No real grog, today, but it looks like after complaints, DriveThru took down his laughable preorder page. Also, this unrelated but highly amusing tweet: quote:I was wondering the same thing: year-and-a-half-old news usually doesn't qualify as a "Major Announcement."
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:25 |
|
|
Selachian posted:Can I mention how amusing it is that, based on the article comments, a 4.5/10 is considered a crushingly awful score instead of slightly below average? Well that is the stupid state of reviews for the last 15+ years, If you're going to use a 10 point scale then use it, but no, if you get a 7 it's a poo poo game, 8 is fine, 9 is good and 10 is only for games everyone already call classics. 5 or less is a slap in the face to some people, even though like you said it should mean slightly less than okay.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 01:33
|
|
