|
Skarka's twitter stream is a wonder and a joy to behold: 20% self promotion/pity party, 80% poo poo-talking nerds for having wrong nerd opinions. Seriously, judging by @gmskarka, the reason Far West is so late is because the writer is spending every waking hour thinking up sick burns to drop on people who didn't like last week's episode of Dr. Who (because they were too goddamn stupid to actually understand it). His Maslow-style "Hierarchy of Needs" is amazing - there's nothing more important in his universe than reminding other nerds how dumb and wrong and ill-informed their nerd opinions are compared to his. He may be coming up on four years late delivering his terrible, derivative, X-meets-Y RPG, but that won't stop him from taking the time to inform everyone about the exactly correct level of enthusiasm that should be shown towards the most recent Star Wars VII trailer.
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:40 |
|
|
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. John Bell (Necrocarcerus), Geoff Grabowski (The Dreams of Ruin) and Kevin Crawford (Stars Without Number) are all rocking it. I quite like the Tekumel prequel Humanspace Empires, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
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? starkebn posted: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. I think it's best to think of the modern review system as a letter grade from school. anything below a 5.5 you've probably fundamentally failed someplace.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:The monthly general chat thread might be the most appropriate, at least when it's not in GBS-lite mode. (It is currently not.) Thanks for the tip!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:I think it's best to think of the modern review system as a letter grade from school. anything below a 5.5 you've probably fundamentally failed someplace. I'm not really sure there's a fix for scores as a system, other than to get rid of them, because fundamentally, any score accepted as 'average' becomes "There are better games, probably even ones like this one, that you could be playing instead"
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
death to review scores
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
So as a person who has contributed to acts of sabotage against OSR, what is OSR? From context it's technically a respect for oldschool rules styles, but in practice just yet another way of saying "everything was better when I was a kid" wrapped up in self-importance. The difference between modern rougelikes, and saying anyone who doesn't like Nethack is just an idiot, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Yeah, no, you have it right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Is that Tom Kirby Tom Kirby? Aka Tom Kirby of Warhammer40k  ?It probably is - GW/White Dwarf got their start as a sort of third-party publisher for D&D in the UK, and that's a UK module...
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:So as a person who has contributed to acts of sabotage against OSR, what is OSR? From context it's technically a respect for oldschool rules styles, but in practice just yet another way of saying "everything was better when I was a kid" wrapped up in self-importance. The term ‘Old School Renaissance’ is a relatively modern idea. It did not exist in the eighteenth century, and even in the nineteenth century it had a meaning rather different from ours. Our use of the term ‘Old School Renaissance’ presupposes a view of history not shared by former generations. To the modern reader, the term ‘Old School Renaissance’ brings to mind activities as diverse as architecture, painting, scientific and geographical discoveries, the political activities of the Italian city states, even Leonardo da Vinci’s studies of anatomy and mechanics. But this collection of signifiers would have had no significance for the eighteenth-century mind because for the eighteenth-century the various fifteenth-century revivals, literary, artistic, scientific, political, and philosophical, were independent movements existing largely in isolation from each other. Yet the myth of the Old School Renaissance does have its roots in eighteenth-century historiography. This chapter looks at the foundations of OSR historiography in the eighteenth century, focusing on the works of Varg Vikernes in France and James Desborough in England.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:So as a person who has contributed to acts of sabotage against OSR, what is OSR? From context it's technically a respect for oldschool rules styles, but in practice just yet another way of saying "everything was better when I was a kid" wrapped up in self-importance. If gaming is religion, the OSR is the Westboro Baptist Church.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
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." Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:So as a person who has contributed to acts of sabotage against OSR, what is OSR? From context it's technically a respect for oldschool rules styles, but in practice just yet another way of saying "everything was better when I was a kid" wrapped up in self-importance. (If I'm getting the terminology, dates or order wrong, please just correct me, as I'm not Shannon Appelcline) Our story begins in 2001, when Kenzer & Company releases a game called HackMaster, which is a derivative of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 1st and 2nd Edition. They managed to do this by coming to a licensing agreement with Wizards of the Coast that they be allowed to release such a game on the condition that it have a bunch of parody and satire elements. They managed to do this because the people behind Kenzer & Company used to do a comic called Knights of the Dinner Table, which was a parody of a group playing not-Dungeons and Dragons except turning the image of adversarial GMing and arcane rulesmanship up to 11. So the company took AD&D, revised it significantly, added the parody and satire elements mandated in their licensing agreement, and released the game. Since it was 2001, just a year out from the release of the very-different-from-AD&D 3rd Edition and AD&D itself had been out of print for a while now, HackMaster did fairly well as a means of being able to play AD&D in well-compiled and reprinted books, even if there was a bunch of material you had to ignore to get to the "original" AD&D feel. Now we have to jump back a bit to 2000, when WOTC releases their Open Game License, which allowed designers to license the d20 system that makes up 3rd Edition D&D and make their own games based on it. I mentioned HackMaster separately from this because as far as I know, the licensing agreement used to publish HackMaster was NOT the OGL, seeing as how work on HackMaster began before the OGL's release in 2000. Anyway, as of 2004, we'd only seen some of the d20 system explosion: d20 Modern, d20 Future, the Star Wars Roleplaying Game, the Wheel of Time Roleplaying game, as so on. Enter Castles & Crusades. C&C was developed by Troll Lord Games, an outfit published a few system agnostic settings books and adventures in the early 2000s and caught the attention of Gary Gygax. C&C used the OGL to create a D&D-derivative that played and felt like Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and incorporating modern elements like a unified mechanic and ascending AC, but removing a lot of what some gamers considered cruft: the complex skill system, feats, large changes in the relative power levels of classes, etc. Now, I'm not sure how well C&C did in the market, but it's the second significant mention in any discussion of the OSR because it kicked off the idea that you could use the OGL to recreate older, out-of-print versions of D&D without needing to go through all the hoops that HackMaster did. After that, we got OSRIC in 2006 as a much closer recreation of the AD&D 1e books (except again, where slight changes were made because of the terms of the OGL). Labyrinth Lord and Basic Fantasy RPG both came out in 2007 as recreations of the Basic/Expert sets (although BFRPG takes some modern liberties like ascending AC and positive attack bonuses), and from there came an explosion of other "retroclones" designed to recreate certain specific editions of the game as closely as they'd be allowed to. The late 2000s would be where the OSR really takes off in the wake of these retroclones, combined with the modern internet such as forums and blogs and social media. WOTC even pivoted off the perceived demand and issued re-releases of older editions, although the PDF piracy debacle of 4th Edition lead to them pulling out most of these until only just recently. If one were going to try to classify certain phases or waves of the OSR, one would do well to separate games which only sought to clone an old edition, and then games which then began to do interesting things with the source material. Lamentations of the Flame Princess bent towards gothic horror, Stars Without Number had a sci-fi setting, and Dungeon Crawl Classics plays up the ultra-lethal Tomb-of-Horrors-esque feel combined with a more "gonzo" setting than traditional high fantasy, and then we're even seeing Silent Legions as a Lovecraftian horror game that lets you randomly roll your own Cthulhu mythos. So yes, the OSR essentially began as a way for people to play old, out-of-print editions of D&D, and then has slowly started to branch out into other subgenres and themes by designers that utilize the relatively rules-light framework of the original games. Where it gets ugly is when people latch onto the OSR as a hill to die on with regards to what they perceive to be other groups within the hobby trying to take it somewhere it shouldn't go (i.e. the whole storygames vs true RPGs schtick), combined with their identification of the OSR as a unique and distinct form of gaming within the RPG hobby (it's really not), combined with some intersectionality with Edition Warring, and finally because the mindset and values of old editions of D&D comes with a lot of less-progressive baggage, which some people then really want to maintain and be assholes about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
"You find two rubies worth 10 gold each..." If you sell the rubies, would you get full retail (their "worth") or half their value (because it's a resale)? How would you handle this? quote:The key is to not tell your players how much something is worth, then when they try to sell it, make them make checks to see if they are being ripped off or to try to get a better price. When you pick something up you don't look at it and say, "wow, that's exactly 10 bucks!". quote:
quote:Our DM used to be a diamond seller years ago so he makes a game out of us exchanging gems for gold by having us actually haggle and negotiate with the local exchange merchant. We do not get the full 100% value for it, and we no longer expect to, but it has become a fun process. quote:It’s common for player characters, even at 3rd or 4th level, to become so wealthy they toss around silver and even gold like it was copper. However, most commoners still deal in copper and silver pieces. Giving the man selling beef jerky from his street cart a silver piece for his 2 cp sack of dried meat is extraordinarily generous. Giving him a gold coin and telling him to keep the change is just imprudent. That’s the kind of thing that can engender contempt rather than gratitude. People that loose with their money gain the reputation of being fools. They will soon find themselves besieged by beggars and con artists. Merchants in that neighborhood will have no respect for them, and certainly won’t cut them any good deals—they may even inflate their prices when known big spenders come into their shops. Certainly I would be just a little bit miffed if the GM expected me to play D&D: The Bartering in the middle of Tiamat's goddamned invasion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 09:21
|
|
|
Here's a gem of a quote, about the Swords & Wizardry adventure MCMLXXVquote:The worst part of the adventure is the introduction, which is a kind of three page designers notes. It’s meant to be a description of how they played in 1975. It’s interesting to read and does a decent job communicating that style of play. He also comes off as a die-hard grog who is talking down to newer players. It’s ok to like a certain style of play and to prefer it. It’s less cool to condescend. A lot less cool. Bill comes off as just another quaint old geezer who everyone puts up; kind of like your un-PC older relatives at a family reunion. That’s too bad. I’d like to think it isn’t on purpose but I see a lot of this sort of behavior online and it drives me nuts. Old dude is Old and is using it to justify his condescending behavior. Maybe this is why I am on the defensive on this module? Idk. Seems reasonable, right? Well, it is. The problem is it's written by Bryce Lynch, the guy who organized that 4e book burning party. Cognitive dissonance? Not practicing what he preaches? Stopped clock syndrome? Up to you I guess. This highlights something I find systematic in the worst parts of the OSR too, a huge lack of self awareness. Speaking of that: The OSR is pretty much a double edged sword. On one hand, it's helped to revive interest in old D&D and even some other RPGs, and it's created a lot of interesting things within that category. On the other, it's enabled a lot of jerks to be jerks to people who've committed the vile crime of creating or liking a game they don't like, or criticizing something they do. Really, it's the job of the reasonable types who are into old rear end D&D to tell those who aren't reasonable to shut the hell up and go away. People really could do better in that department, but I see it happen (and do it myself) However, I don't even think it's anything close to necessary to be involved with the OSR on that level to enjoy old D&D or even new products created for old D&D. Nobody really needs to give a poo poo about some weird doctrinal definitions of what's a retroclone and what's a neoclone or near clone or whatever the gently caress they've decided to call it today or if Marvel Super Heroes or Chivalry and Sorcery "count" to play Dungeon Crawl Classics, Stars Without Number, read the Dungeon Dozen blog or pick up a copy of Petty Gods. In other words, for me, I hear you all about how there's a difference between people who just like BECMI and 1E and the OSR, and I agree. But even though I don't really consider myself "an OSR person" I can't help but feel that it would be disappointing to just surrender that label to the shitheads. Personally, I'd rather push them out altogether. I guess that's becoming a more familiar feeling lately. I do have a lot of interests that a lot of vocal assholes are coming out of the woodwork about. I'd like to think that a lot of it is death throes, but maybe I'm just an optimist. And while I love Conan, Heavy Metal, old Kurt Russell movies, and the usual stuff that's associated with the aesthetic of what old D&D enthusiasts enjoy, I like plenty of other things and it's been a breath of fresh air to see the whole thing open up to other modes of fantasy (Beyond the Wall, Spears of the Dawn) and other material altogether. In the end I really don't see what being a petulant tool about elfgames like these people do accomplishes, other than staking out a really boring turf, and feeling superior. I've had a lot of success getting people to try old RPGs with a "party like it's 1976" angle. Hell a dude on the DCCRPG google+ group suggested having an actual 1970s party night while playing and that sounds really fun. I would have zero success if I approached the hobby as a purist crusade. BTW gradenko your post up there is quite good. Nice job. Lightning Lord fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 11:44
|
|
|
quote:I agree with the Benj. Tweeking some standard fantasy into a early century circus mood is somewhat an easy enough task. Christian, ortiental and jews!!! magic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Arivia posted:Is that Tom Kirby Tom Kirby? Aka Tom Kirby of Warhammer40k Looks like it. He worked for TSR UK, and it would just be a huge coincidence if they weren't the same guy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
quote:Dungeon World is an easily breakable game, so if you enjoy D&D for the character creation/tinkering/mechanical aspects, not only will you not find any meaningful character build choices, but you'll quickly find yourself out-leveling your group. quote:Dungeon World is very far from D&D imo. D&D takes rules for simulation and makes them a game, where you can roleplay, etc. Yes, 5e incents rp'ing via inspiration, but D&D is and always will be a combat simulation with a bunch of stuff around it. (And I think that's a good thing--it's not a coincidence it's popular and old.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
I admit to some mild personal irritation with the OSR for throwing around the "You can do ANYTHING with this ruleset!" type claims, then when I actually read it having to go through "Well, anything that's normal gaming, having no skill system just means you're free to make up your own, it's perfectly equipped for whatever you want to run!" type rigmarole.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
"I started an online campaign world, met some very good and cool players, and immediately realized how much I hated the game because they were good at doing what it does well--making up random poo poo to impress each other." He's so close to admitting he doesn't have the ability to create without random tables to roll against, and he's jealous of those that can.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I admit to some mild personal irritation with the OSR for throwing around the "You can do ANYTHING with this ruleset!" type claims, then when I actually read it having to go through "Well, anything that's normal gaming, having no skill system just means you're free to make up your own, it's perfectly equipped for whatever you want to run!" type rigmarole. Fable "you can do anything!" (You can't do anything)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:In other words, for me, I hear you all about how there's a difference between people who just like BECMI and 1E and the OSR, and I agree. But even though I don't really consider myself "an OSR person" I can't help but feel that it would be disappointing to just surrender that label to the shitheads. Personally, I'd rather push them out altogether. I guess that's becoming a more familiar feeling lately. I do have a lot of interests that a lot of vocal assholes are coming out of the woodwork about. I'd like to think that a lot of it is death throes, but maybe I'm just an optimist. The problem with that, and I say this as someone with no real investment in the OSR either way, is that it frankly sounds exhausting. Like yeah, in an ideal world a bunch of reasonable and cool old-school D&D fans would start an organized effort to tell the lovely assholes to stop being lovely assholes, but realistically that never happens and the assholes are often exactly the sorts of people who are perfectly willing to dedicate a huge chunk of their free time and effort to planting a flag on their particular hill of being a snotty jerk over what kind of make-believe people play. Look at that dude up there nursing a five year grudge over being banned from an internet forum. That's the sort of person you'd have to "push out" if you wanted to reclaim the OSR's good name.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
I guess I don't really put a lot of stock into whether or not I can identify as "an OSR person", and this is as someone whose first IRL tabletop experience was with the Basic set in TYOOL 2014. It's nice as a tag for broad compatibility across a unified game system: "I made an OSR monster" means it's got xd8 hit dice, determinate AC and special abilities that are just described in the rules text, and you can drop it into any pre-3rd Edition game. Ditto saying "this is an OSR module" means you can run it in AD&D or B/X or whatnot without expecting having to do a lot of modifications. It's when you use it as an exclusionary label that's not good. Like, there's an awful lot of material in OSR D&D that are progenitors of more contemporary game design theory, but you'd never get grogs to admit it, because if the old-school D&D gameplay is really just ... gameplay, and if the OSR is just another descriptor on the level of "the d20 system" or "the BRP system", they can't play their identity politics anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
^^ Right. The OSR 'movement' could charitably be described as a group that celebrates classic design elements. Less charitably, it actively resists modern elements from entering the hobby. Least charitably, it's basically Gamergate for TTRPGs. I'm not sure what value rests in the label. For people outside the hobby it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever. So you require at least a passing familiarity with the dialogue that's been going on in TTRPGs for the last half decade to really understand what the OSR is and why it exists. It's not that there aren't valuable games in there or valuable people; there are. But a 'movement' that has set itself up in opposition to the present state of RPGs, which are currently more accessible than they've ever been, is going to look like the anti-accessibility movement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
We can't, of course, poll everyone who identifies with the OSR to learn about their attitudes, but I figure that there are probably plenty of old-school bloggers who will say they like the OSR, maybe even put that cute graph-paper map logo on their blog, but who aren't serious about the OSR as a "movement" that demands veneration, much less hateful toward anybody who plays new games. Are some of you guys equating the OSR with theRPGsite? They're not synonymous; theRPGsite just collects the bitter dregs of other forums, some of whom identify with the OSR. Maybe I just haven't read what you all have read, but in my experience, most angry OSR grognards are concerned entirely with games that are within the sphere of D&D. For example, guys on Dragonsfoot or KnightsnKnaves are more likely to get crusty over somebody downplaying Gygax's authorship of D&D in favour of giving Arneson his due, rather than freaking out over the Communist storygame conspiracy. I don't think narrative games are even on their radar. spectralent posted:I admit to some mild personal irritation with the OSR for throwing around the "You can do ANYTHING with this ruleset!" type claims, then when I actually read it having to go through "Well, anything that's normal gaming, having no skill system just means you're free to make up your own, it's perfectly equipped for whatever you want to run!" type rigmarole. Whereas on the other hand, when Goblinoid Games made Mutant Future, they mashed the various pre-3e versions of Gamma World together and made it compatible with Labyrinth Lord, so you can seamlessly port weird sci-fi stuff into your D&D game. Another dude came up with some classes for B/X...so instead of publishing it as a full game and calling it Basements & Basilisks or whatever, he published it the way that material ought to be published: as a class compendium for Labyrinth Lord.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
So what's the rules on posting poo poo goons say, 'cos, uh, drat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Allen Wren posted:So what's the rules on posting poo poo goons say, 'cos, uh, drat. No homegroan cuz drama.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Noted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
You can point people at a thread where terrible opinions are being expressed, but discussing / quoting dumb threads and posters in other threads is Helldumpy and against the rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
I guess you could quote this thread on the general Quotes thread in PYF, but then you'd just be kind of a dick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
So, Monte Cook Games learned their lesson from the Thunder Plains debacle, right?Worlds Numberless and Strange posted:RIVERSIDE (SUBSTANDARD PHYSICS) 
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
So is the Strange just going to be a rolling anti-racism intervention for Monte Cook, one racial stereotype at a time?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:So is the Strange just going to be a rolling anti-racism intervention for Monte Cook, one racial stereotype at a time? Nah, see, they've covered themselves this time; it doesn't actually identify which indigenous group they're being racist against (though the Amazon is kind of implied, right?) so nobody can legitimately complain!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Fish calls? This is literally a muppet sketch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Someone is confused that people thought Gygax's writing was…overwrought.quote:It was written for a generation that actually opened books and read them. A generation that would spend all day reading them, leafing through them, even rereading their favorite ones. A generation that I only knew the echoes of, but which this one doesn't even know the first thing about. quote:I agree with the hectoring claim. In the DMG, Gygax is an absolutist. If you wish to play a monster, or an evil character, or if you make house rules, he's calling you out. You're a pariah, a leper, an excommunicate. quote:I recently re-read blocks of the 1E DMG and came away having confirmed one of my biggest judgements about the modern gaming environment: if you want to find really lovely writing, look no further than the latest $50 full color hard cover from a modern major company. Gygaxian language is weird and convoluted, but the dude had a voice, and that voice was both effective and a big part of the tone of the first 5 years of the hobby. Nearly everything being written today (with the exception of some of the better OSR titles) is truly poo poo: bland, pointless, bloated, self-regarding wankery, intermixed with technical writing that is about as inspired as the instructions for my DVD player. Every moment you spend reading these things makes your soul shrivel just a little bit more. We should all be delighted, grateful and inspired by Gygax's bizarre writing style. quote:If I didn't stop getting my hackles up about people's lovely opinions about Gary, about his writing style and about AD&D as he wrote it, you could use the back of my neck to clean paint off your boat. —the guy who called me a oval office for correcting him about something Jenna Moran wrote  quote:People received actual educations in prior centuries quote:
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
These people need to read them some loving Hemingway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
I don't think there's any shame in enjoying prose that is not aggressively minimalist, but it's a loving taste thing, not some kind of sign of ignorance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Nerds who think that their ability to read a rulebook from 1981 makes them one of society's intellectual elite will never not be funny. Why bother wasting your time with One Hundred Years of Solitude, Ulysses, The Bluest Eye, Gravity's Rainbow, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Siddhartha, The Magic Mountain, or Infinite Jest when the real insights into human nature can be found in Role-Playing Mastery and Mythus: Dangeous Journeys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
quote:Gygaxian language is weird and convoluted, but the dude had a voice, Ugh. "Gygaxian" is just aping Jack Vance's fantasy series, awkwardly and with no understanding of how and why he wrote the way he did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Plague of Hats posted:Fish calls? This is literally a muppet sketch. Quick, somebody get Lew Zealand on the line!
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:40 |
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Ugh. "Gygaxian" is just aping Jack Vance's fantasy series, awkwardly and with no understanding of how and why he wrote the way he did. I don't begrudge someone just having fun with it, as I believe Gygax did. Acting like (one of) the first wargames nerds pounding out baroque rules for pretending to be one guy instead of five was a symbol of our glorious golden past, on the other hand…
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 03:44
|
|