The state of Post-OSR content

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
I didn't make it too far in. Everything Bryce complains about in today's review applies here including:

The formatting, though, is trying a little too hard. There is, again, clearly an attempt to do the right things here. Boxes. BUllets, font sizing, bolding,e tc. I’m not MAD at it. But I do think it’s ineffective. Ultimately, all of the formatting, and different colored boxes and other attempts to bring clarity end up resulting in a more confusing mess because of all of it. This is a common mistake in overcorrection. Trimming the text up should help quite a bit, and calming the various color schemes for the fonts and boxes. You want something that is easy onthe easy to grok, but brings clarity to the text. This format is complex and causes the brain to fight it.
Funny, I usually prefer the simplicity of more traditional approaches, but I found this one easy to process, which is why I flagged it. Also, it was only 5 pages, how far did you get exactly?

EDIT: I looked at the preview of the adventure from Bryce's review today, this is nothing like that.

The setting is Ren Faire out the wazzoo. The descriptive tells you what you are doing. It falls into all sorts of writing and play traps. This guy is a railroad DM lurking in the tall grasses. Linear & scripted.

No thanks, I would not want to play at this table. This is not D&D---which actual is fine with the author who vocally rejects D&D.
You will recall that I pointed this adventure out "not for the adventure itself, which is linear, but because of how it is organized and presented." I know nobody here is going to like the playstyle.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
Sorry. I was a bit grumpy this morning.

I got to the 3rd page. I was just alluding to the fact that the formatting was very busy (as per the quote) not saying that they looked identical. One column for the adventure and one column for additional info is an interesting variant.

10-4 on the play style. All his busting up on D&D put me in a rather unforgiving mindset.
 
Last edited:

Yora

Should be playing D&D instead
I didn't know people missed me that much. :p

I replied plenty to this thread, like... three years ago. As a deeply commited AD&HD GM, I periodically throw my hands up in the air and wander off to go tinkering with completely different games for a couple of month. And then eventually I come back and climb back on the oldschool horse.
Something that had really bothered me for a very long time was that I just really didn't get how dungeons work as fun places to explore. My dungeons were always lame and grindy.
This very elaborate explanation by Gus L made me finally understand how dungeons are not just collections of monsters, traps, and random out of place puzzles, but a game structure with an engaging gameplay loop. This is the good shit. Now I actually understand how D&D can deliver the kind of experience it always promised but that I've never seen delivered.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Good to have you back, @Yora.

So, Goodman Games is giving the Original Adventures Reincarnated treatment to Dark Tower: Kickstarter is here. You can choose between a conversion to DCC or to 5e, which includes a copy with the original rules and brand new companion modules/setting. Jacquays was interviewed for the project and is helping to promote it, but they aren't touting her as the author of the new modules so I'm assuming she isn't.

I understand that GG bought the rights, so Judges Guild gets no proceeds from this.

I have two books in this series. One combines B1 and B2, and the other is S3. I haven't really looked at the S3 conversion yet, but I have been a bit ambivalent about the 5e conversions for B1 and B2, and disappointed with the new adventure material they added.

For the new material, let's just say they aren't on par with Gygax, or even Carr. For the conversion, I am bothered by their editorial choices. The bulk of the text is the same as the originals, but they have edited it in some places, and not just to reflect new mechanics. And the editing is weird, where it appears it often seems to have no purpose. And yet, they have not bothered to fix any of the overly long text, particularly in B1. Like, if you are going to edit, edit.

Anyway, if you wanted to run Dark Tower in 5e, it can probably save you some work.

EDIT: If you want to run TSR stuff in 5e, and don't want to pay for GG's coffee-table books, your starting point is probably here.
 
Last edited:

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
I read this as LVW being firmly a B/X player in the Trad style trying his best to invalidate an older style of play because he doesn't understand it or want it to pre-date his. It's all about the street cred of being first.

Classic play could evolve into epic tales in hindsight...and certainly the world had structural content---but that's different from an actively managed "path to glory" and a (distasteful to me) overt heroic spotlight on the PC. Sure, some of that existed prior to Dragonlance...but it became the defacto standard with Trad (with everything else challenged-base sidelined or dropped because it often de-railed the heroic story). In classic play, the PC were more often the bumbling fools than the awesome heroes. That's the difference.

Just look at the 1e DMG cartoons---the PCs are most often depicted as clueless in them.

LVW is just sour-grapes-ing it and his supporting quotes don't (IMO) actually tell the narrative he's trying to write.
 

PrinceofNothing

High Executarch
Staff member
The tell is that he has to grab little snippets and throwaway sentences here and there to justify a position while ignoring the strongest possible indicator, i.e., the many scenarios, official and fan-made, that were created during the classic era, as an indicator of how people actually played. 'But we did it differently.' No one cares. Even the position that there is something like a codified OSR-style of play that is somehow vastly different of an original style that may or may not have existed is LESS TENIBLE then the position that Classic play existed.

Lich van Wrinkle is a boring, disingenuous bitter dummy, still angry at Gary Gygax because he ran over his dog or maybe the gamers that forced him to take a shower before he was admitted to the weekly store game, a sort of wannabe Gus L (streuth! talking of the tyranny of low expectations) without the credentials or the snippets of actual D&D knowledge.

The OSR was originally a revolution from the Trad (or simulationist) playstyle, markedly different because of its renewed focus on dungeons, gameplay and procedural generation as opposed to storylines, storygaming (the other alternative to the main that failed where the OSR succeeded) and min-/max characterbuilding.

The OSR as anything less then a continuation of the original game and its attendant challenge based playstyle does not make sense, and those who abandon the link fall to Chaos sooner or later.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
No punches pulled, PoN! As always, your directness is refreshing.

...now if I could only get you to critique on my art, I'm sure I'd either be the next Rembrandt by now...or want to kill myself like Van Gogh.
 

Hemlock

Should be playing D&D instead
I didn't know people missed me that much. :p
For what it's worth, I am new to this forum but recognize you from GITP, and seeing your name on this thread is exactly what got me interested enough to read it.

(Great points from others too--I'm currently only up to page 11 but have gotten tons of insights from various posters, too many to name. Other threads here have been great too. This is my first actual post though.)
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Hello Hemlock. Good luck with the bitter edition-war that broke out somewhere around page 20 :p
 

The Heretic

Should be playing D&D instead
Hello Hemlock. Good luck with the bitter edition-war that broke out somewhere around page 20 :p
I looked back (wanted to make sure I was well behaved if I was involved) and it looks like the edition wars started well before then.

And anyway we can all blame that on DP.
 

Yora

Should be playing D&D instead
I don't even know how this thread has gotten so long.

Or what people have actually trying to debate for the last two years.
 

Hemlock

Should be playing D&D instead
Maybe quasi-relevant to the discussion --- today's Gronardia post on a mechanic that surprises the DM and takes things out of his hand.
Wow, that is a brilliant article.

5E has a mechanic for rewarding players for good roleplay by giving them floating advantage called "inspiration". AD&D tends to give bonus XP instead. But what if I instead reward them with a draw from the Campaign deck with cards like

"the monsters turn out to be friendly to you" or

"choose a NPC who has previously been mentioned or seen--they now have a hidden nemesis dedicated to their destruction" or

"Calamity strikes! Choose one type of monster such as 'mind flayer'--this monster does not exist in the game world if it has not already been seen, or if it has will soon cease to exist, being wiped out by enemies or natural disasters or arcane cataclysm. There may be side effects."

If I limit them to holding one card at a time, immediately expiring when a new card is awarded (you can keep the old card and ignore the award but can't play it and still receive the award)... I think this could be a lot of fun if I can think up enough cards!

Thanks for sharing.
 
Last edited:

Hemlock

Should be playing D&D instead
That's not my experience, at least not in 1e. Always in harm's way, crappy chances of doing anything at low to mid level, crappy chances of hitting anything at mid to high level, front line, crappy AC and HP but trying to backstab requires you to be in melee, dungeon design makes getting into backstab position nearly impossible. Stealth options that work significantly less than 50% of the time aren't reliable enough to count on - and when they fail the squishy thief is all on his own without party support. In any situation where the evil overlord and/or team monster can be assumed to be not completely blithering idiots, the thief is dead or down frequently, because he sucks at stealth, and shutting him down in combat requires almost no tactical acumen.
Most of the criticisms of the Thief that I've read aren't conceptual, but mechanical: it's not that sneaking and finding traps aren't cool or worthwhile, it's that (O/A)D&D Thieves are *bad* at these things, especially at low level.

Intuition tells me that the root of the problem is using % dice for thief skills, in conjunction with low starting values for all the skills.

I wonder whether a dice pool mechanic might not be a better way to model expertise. Something like the following five Thief skills, each starting at one die (d6):

Camouflage: exist/sneak without your presence being detected

Forgery: create documents, uniforms, etc. that look like the real thing

Hands: delicate manipulations such as pickpocketing, card magic, lockpicking, disarming fine traps

Perceive: notice large traps, hear clues, oppose Camouflage

Savvy: predict NPC actions, detect social manipulators, have already prepared for a given situation.

(Maybe a Climb Walls skill somehow too, or is that just Hands?)

I'm imagining that you get one extra die per level to add to one of these skills, or maybe two at high level. Tools might give you additional dice or subtract dice if they're substandard.

Example usage:

Picking a crude lock jury-rigged out of iron by a goblin blacksmith requires Hands 1:5 (read: at least one 5-6 in your dice pool). A 1st level thief who chose to specialize in Hands (2 dice) and has decent tools (no penalty, no bonus) would roll two d6s. If either is 5+ (55% probability) he picks the lock, otherwise that lock is beyond him until the situation changes (such as gaining more Hands skill or consulting a mentor about goblin locks). At 2nd level, he could bump Hands to 3d6 (70% chance of success on the crude lock) or invest in a different skill.

A lock in town might be harder, 2:5. A really impressive tamper-resistant lock might need higher rolls, such as 2:6 or even 3:6. A Hands 3:6 lock is impossible for a novice thief to pick, and tricky even for a master thief with Hands 10d6.

Similarly, forging a simple travel permit within the Hobgoblin Empire might be Forgery 1:5 (easy for anyone who's ever seen one) while access to a classified military location might require Forgery 3:6 documents.

If the PCs get thrown in a jail during a heist, "I've already bribed this guard with money. He's supposed to drop a copy of the key on the floor" might require a Savvy 3:5 check, but if the DM decides that this guard isn't corrupt, and money won't work, he could say "roll Savvy 5:5 instead" and on success, tell the player, "You found that this guard isn't corrupt and won't take money, but he's desperate to find his missing daughter [adventure hook]. You promised to help with that if he helps you. He drops the key on the floor just as you had planned."

I imagine that instead of various races getting +/- 5% to Hide In Shadows, etc., elves might get * or ** to Camouflage while halflings get * to Perceive, where each * means "you can add +1 to a die of your choice". Thus, Camouflage 2d6* might roll 4, 5, which you can use to satisfy Camouflage 1:6 (4, 6) or Camouflage 2:5 (5,5).

I think by boosting the low-level success rate and reorganizing the skills, Thieves would have a unique niche that isn't easily duplicated by a wizard with Knock and Invisibility. Having a Thief in the party would feel less like a tax begrudgingly paid (or ignored in favor of another priest to offset trap damage) and more like a role that brings an actual benefit to the party and is fun playing.

At any rate, this is about what it would take to get *me* to want to play a Thief sometimes.

Just spitballing here--anyone want to comment?
 
Last edited:

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
We've always had a thief in the party...and they have always lasted the longest. There's also the bonus of neutrality and no impetuous to play hero (i.e. naked self-interest). It wasn't until recently (probably post the min/max 3e era) I'd heard any shade being thrown at thieves.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
We've already had this discussion, and I think it ends up the the utility of a thief is entirely dependent on the predilections of the DM in relation to a whole bunch of factors including combat environment and rulings regarding getting into backstab position.

Back in my 1e days my personal experience was that thieves were so outclassed in combat they were no fun to play. Especially as you rise in level, when the differences in "to hit" bonuses start to add up, and MUs come into their prime, and fighters start getting the really good gear (and maybe the odd strength bump here and there), I found I just couldn't hit a damned thing, especially since I could never get into backstab position. It probably got worse when fighters were given weapon specialization. So I ran fighter/thieves just so I could have access to the fighter combat table and multiple attacks.

EDIT: So you can address the problem with a particular DMing style, or with multiclassing, or with new mechanics like @Hemlock is suggesting. But you wouldn't need to do those things if there wasn't a problem in the first place. And it is not an answer that you have only ever played with DMs who had the "proper" (i.e. corrective) style; that just means you were always using a correction, and you just didn't know it.
 
Last edited:
Top