Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Ghul wrote:...I have clung to what may be called a "misguided loyalty to Gygaxian gaming"...

Huzzah!

The wording of his post bugged the hell out of me. I can't quite put my finger fully upon how or why.

In the AD&D days, the rules had enough leeway for DM judgment calls that a group could bend and twist the rules to fit the DM’s feel for how things should work.

"Bend and twist" suggests an uncomfortable, unnatural, illicit act of distortion. He seems to be saying that the referee's process of questioning and adapting the rules to suit his needs is unnatural, unwelcome or inappropriate. In truth, adaptation, deletion, emendation, expansion, and revision are all processes which are perfectly natural and human. It's about a critical examination and ultimate personalisation of the ruleset--not blind rote memorisation and strict adherence--the last two concepts Mearls seems to regard as requisites. The bewildering, marvelous diversity of rules-interpretations (and expansions) has injected a vital lifeforce into the hobby. Regarding the rules an inalterable Holy Writ can only stiffle the human drive to adapt, experiment and alter. Gamers want customisation, as if that act makes a corporate product theirs, but the corporation wants their product unchanged by the consumer, who, apparently, has no right to impose its minuscule will on the output of the mega-entity of the corporation.

Thus, while the design might have pointed in one direction, DMs can and did alter the game as they saw fit.

I.e. (corporate) design, and following it unquestioningly = GOOD, while the referee's and player's acts of alteration = BAD.

With the release of 3rd Edition, we saw a new trend that 4th Edition only strengthened. The rules became more comprehensive and easier to use.

Um, no. Let me correct that for you: "The rules became more complicated and harder to use." The learning curve definitely shot upward precipitously with the release of the d20 system, intimidating many with the complexity of the new ruleset...in addition to the prohibitive cost of buying three glossy, full-colour hardbacks, not to mention the further supplements.

A DM was still free to modify them, but it became a lot easier to just use the rules as written.

Wrong yet again. "A referee was no longer allowed to question the judgement of the Omniscient Designers, and it became much harder to play the game as written, as sessions were derailed by more heated arguments gestated in the labyrinthine matrix of the corerules."

Grr. This guy really burns me up.

ThirstyStirge wrote:The wording of his post bugged the hell out of me. I can't quite put my finger fully upon how or why.

In the AD&D days, the rules had enough leeway for DM judgment calls that a group could bend and twist the rules to fit the DM’s feel for how things should work.

"Bend and twist" suggests an uncomfortable, unnatural, illicit act of distortion. He seems to be saying that the referee's process of questioning and adapting the rules to suit his needs is unnatural, unwelcome or inappropriate. In truth, adaptation, deletion, emendation, expansion, and revision are all processes which are perfectly natural and human. It's about a critical examination and ultimate personalisation of the ruleset--not blind rote memorisation and strict adherence--the last two concepts Mearls seems to regard as requisites. The bewildering, marvelous diversity of rules-interpretations (and expansions) has injected a vital lifeforce into the hobby. Regarding the rules an inalterable Holy Writ can only stiffle the human drive to adapt, experiment and alter. Gamers want customisation, as if that act makes a corporate product theirs, but the corporation wants their product unchanged by the consumer, who, apparently, has no right to impose its minuscule will on the output of the mega-entity of the corporation.

Heh. WotC editions are the sad, long story of greasing the squeaky wheel. Anti-DM sentiment was, at least when I was reading their boards, very, very loud.

Grr. This guy really burns me up.

I don't know what Mike really thinks. His whole post is full of political soft-stepping. Trying to appeal to his current customer base and not piss off everyone else. He's not doing a very good job of that latter, at least.

I am curious, as to what he thinks he's going to accomplish. Maybe he's just farting around, while waiting for his own dismissal. Farting around seems an apt description of WotC's actions, of late.

I think it is probably a bit too easy to read negative motives into what Mearls says there. The bottom line is that he does like the design direction that D&D has gone in for the most part, so he is not going to put an entirely positive spin on the "design features" of what went before. Whilst there is something of an "anti-corporate identity" in the "old school" reaction to WotC and D20, it does largely amount to its own corporate identity.

D&D is dead to me. All that we have that is truly ours are the retro-clones like OSRIC.

ThirstyStirge wrote:
"Bend and twist" suggests an uncomfortable, unnatural, illicit act of distortion.

Mmm. "Bend and Twist" reminds me of blacksmithing or other types of fabrication, which is an approach I can get behind, but I can see your point as well.

But again, since 2004, I've purchased no WotC D&D rulebooks (last purchase was the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana), though I have picked up a few of their dungeon tile sets and a few of the DDM minis when the local store had them on sale. WotC has had very little influence on me since then. Hell, Mearls himself once stated over at ENW that "they don't need us designers after they buy the rules" or something to that effect.

Clangador wrote:D&D is dead to me. All that we have that is truly ours are the retro-clones like OSRIC.

Should I PM you my address? I can always use spare 1e Players Handbooks, Monster Manuals, DMGs, etc.

Just no post Unearthed Arcana stuff, though, please.

Clangador wrote:D&D is dead to me. All that we have that is truly ours are the retro-clones like OSRIC.

And that is pretty much what will happen to older versions, it will become a folk tradition. If the OSR is not a fad and survives a few decades from now, it will become the "oral tradition" of D&D. However, don't expect it to be as "pure", as in a few dozen years the tradition will get what others put into it, that experimentation.

I dunno, guys, I still gotta look at that recent episode of Community (“Advanced Dungeons & Dragons”) as an indicator that popular “folk tradition” regarding our hobby is still proudly rooted in 1e.

JRT wrote:And that is pretty much what will happen to older versions, it will become a folk tradition. If the OSR is not a fad and survives a few decades from now, it will become the "oral tradition" of D&D. However, don't expect it to be as "pure", as in a few dozen years the tradition will get what others put into it, that experimentation.

Dragonsfoot came online in May 2000, which makes the old school online community more than 11 years old. It's not a fad.

I didn't equate the OSR with "people who like the older D&D", but rather the current trend of retro-cloning the games. OSRIC was the first, but now it seems like there's dozens of people self-publishing a variant clone of OD&D or AD&D.

The folk tradition may be rooted in 1e D&D--but as all folk traditions go, they are rarely stable. If D&D's root (thanks to the reverse engineered versions) are turned into folk traditions, eventually I can see two possible things happening. First, the variants will keep spinning off into more variant directions and take people in those directions. Or, as gamers age and if D&D's owners keep rebooting things, 2nd and even 3rd edition concepts will come in, as well as popular concepts from computer games and other things. Like all Oral traditions, there will be many branches.

Getting back to the topic, that's why I think people should just worry about enjoying the game and not whether or not WoTC still keeps original 1e in print. Enjoy it for what it is, share your own knowledge and hope that, in the end, the next generations enjoy some of the same things you enjoyed, even if they won't have the exact same experience.

JRT wrote:I didn't equate the OSR with "people who like the older D&D", but rather the current trend of retro-cloning the games. OSRIC was the first, but now it seems like there's dozens of people self-publishing a variant clone of OD&D or AD&D.

That's a rather narrow definition of the OSR. Leaving aside Rule-sets, there are over 160 modules and supplements, made within the past few years and now available for purchase with more being created every day. Then, there's all the free material, being generated.

I am also, for the moment, not challenging what seems to be your assumption that the OSR is limited to publishing efforts and activity immediately related. I don't agree with that interpretation of things, at all, but one thing at a time.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:

JRT wrote:And that is pretty much what will happen to older versions, it will become a folk tradition. If the OSR is not a fad and survives a few decades from now, it will become the "oral tradition" of D&D. However, don't expect it to be as "pure", as in a few dozen years the tradition will get what others put into it, that experimentation.

Dragonsfoot came online in May 2000, which makes the old school online community more than 11 years old. It's not a fad.

Never mind the likely many offline players who still have their books from the 80s and game with friends and their kids (I know of a few groups non of which have any interest of going online) this has come before, the guess was in the many thousands. Don't mistake the few hundred online active "old school" people (some of us cynical) as "all thats left". We online folks are a drop in the bucket just the most fanatic (I play many board games regularly but have never been to any of their websites or fan websites, yet here I am, so I'm a 1E fanatic). You can't have millions of copies of 1E floating around (in perfectly good shape) and people not playing it...not with so many with fond memories. If they are pulling out their old risk, monopoly, and life boards during holidays, you can rest assured they are doing the same with their 1E D&D books. You can take it to the bank.

There been 1200 copies of Blackmarsh downloaded and 50 physical sales of the book. After the asking around this ratio is typical of a product with a free PDF and commerical print book. Based on this and the 500+ sales of Majestic Wilderlands there is solid interest in older editions.

AxeMental wrote: Never mind the likely many offline players who still have their books from the 80s and game with friends and their kids (I know of a few groups non of which have any interest of going online) this has come before, the guess was in the many thousands. Don't mistake the few hundred online active "old school" people (some of us cynical) as "all thats left". We online folks are a drop in the bucket just the most fanatic (I play many board games regularly but have never been to any of their websites or fan websites, yet here I am, so I'm a 1E fanatic). You can't have millions of copies of 1E floating around (in perfectly good shape) and people not playing it...not with so many with fond memories. If they are pulling out their old risk, monopoly, and life boards during holidays, you can rest assured they are doing the same with their 1E D&D books. You can take it to the bank.

Absolutely! Honestly, there's no telling how many people out there ignore WotC, the internet scene, etc. Hell, BitD my gaming group paid just about no attention to TSR at all! I was the only one who even read Dragon Magazine.

Not too long ago I had the opportunity to talk to some of my old gaming buddies, who live in the city I moved from over 10 years ago. They totally ignored 3e, etc., knew nothing of the OSR or any other online gaming happening. When they play, they play AD&D.