PDA

View Full Version : Demarcation Needed



S Ferguson
April 22nd, 2013, 20:07
I think at some point there has to be a consensus on what we, the FG community, will be discussing in this forum. I mention this because there's already confusion (myself included :confused: ) over this "what will be discussed here." Is the forum strictly for D&D, Basic D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2e and the "blatantly obvious" clones, like LL, ALL & OSRIC for example? If so, how far do we dip into what makes a game a "suitable" addition. I for instance have a AD&D game based around the rules of GORE (a Runequest-like retro-game by the same makers of LL) and have added a few things from Mutant Future (the Gamma World clone which was always close to D&D until the 3e). These house rules or other systems, IMHO should be discussed as well if they are in the context of D&D. It can only serve to enrich the game (from a DM's or players' perspective) and might shine light where there was previously darkness. Someone is bound to learn something from another system, even if it might not be too close to actual D&D rules.

Thoughts?
SF

dr_venture
April 23rd, 2013, 01:35
As far as I'm concerned, as long as the content is aimed at something related to classic D&D, or something that some folks may find related to that (such as your house rules) then I'm curious to read about it.

Answulf
April 23rd, 2013, 04:05
Agreed. I think any kind of demarcation would do more harm than good. This place already has forum-itis as it is.

Point being - I'm interested in Classic D&D as a subject, not as a specific TSR ruleset, and would rather only have to visit one forum for that content. Anything even vaguely related will most likely be interesting to someone who would be looking in a Classic D&D forum to begin with... Bring on the GORE + Mutant Future.

Castles and Crusades is really the only gray area since it already has its own forum but is a good fit for this one too. Personally I would prefer they were combined - the C&C forum is pretty quiet and would be dead if it wasn't for you two. :)

S Ferguson
April 23rd, 2013, 05:54
Well you're more than welcome to join in the forum at any time. And the "grey area" I think might even bring more people over to the C&C ruleset, which would be a good thing.:D

Conversely it might inspire someone to adopt a bit of C&C into their D&D campaigns. The system are worlds apart in most of their mechanics but there is still something to be learned from each system - and that can be extended to a generality about all systems. :)

The overlap of topics could cover the entire forum board, and I would encourage it and so-far it seems to be a consensus providing it has something to do with the D&D system. After all it would be pretty confusing for a beginning FG player, going from signal to noise, in the forum. :confused:

GunnarGreybeard
April 23rd, 2013, 06:37
Well, my OCD says it should be limited to D&D, Basic D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2e :D but I wouldn't really have a problem with overlap since the clones generally originated from that same source. I guess it depends on traffic too. If this section gets too cluttered it might later necessitate some further separation between the truly D&D named versions and the clones.

dr_venture
April 23rd, 2013, 06:55
I think C&C's main place here is where it is discussed in relation to classic D&D.There's a lot of crossover, and potentially good stuff to be swapped between the systems. Other than that, anything specific to C&C should be brought up in it's own forum.

Answulf
April 23rd, 2013, 08:07
I guess it depends on traffic too. If this section gets too cluttered it might later necessitate some further separation between the truly D&D named versions and the clones.

This section already has more posts in it's first 11 days than the Arcana Evolved section has had in five years... :D

opusaug
April 23rd, 2013, 08:07
I agree with Gunnar.

Is the forum ... for D&D, Basic D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2e and the "blatantly obvious" clones, like LL, ALL & OSRIC for example?
This - after removal of the word "strictly" - is my suggestion. I'm all for firm definitions, but we can police ourselves without going overboard.

IMHO, your example of your house rules game depends if you're trying to use one of the classic/retro rulesets created for the games mentioned above (in that case, yes post here) or some other ruleset (in which case it's probably more appropriate to go in the forum for that ruleset). I think the rub is: where does "Classic D&D" end and "Other Game Systems" begin, especially if the discussion is about creating a new ruleset? I think the answer to that will come over time, as we discuss things and guide the discussion between the forums. Is the ruleset so different from the Classic games that it's really an entirely different game? In another thread I asked: "Perhaps DW stuff should go in 'Other Game Systems'?" That's about as much enforcement/guidance as I think is necessary.

Incidentally, I think some of the other comments in this thread lean too far in the other direction, and invite a free-for-all. Some people find my pattern for logical thinking a bit odd, so you really don't want to ask me to show "context" for what I'm "learning". Basically that would require me to talk about nothing but Star Trek, since All I Ever Needed To Know I Learned from that. ;)

S Ferguson
April 23rd, 2013, 17:06
This section already has more posts in it's first 11 days than the Arcana Evolved section has had in five years... :D

And probably has seen more action than "Other Game Systems" has had in a while ;)I tend to agree with Gunnar as well. Although I very rarely read about 3.5e gaming on that site anymore, as a fair but of it is more Pathfinder oriented. This might be the last bastion for classic fans of the "granddaddy of them all."

GunnarGreybeard
April 24th, 2013, 00:39
Maybe its just nostalgia but I think there is still a large old school community and I believe a concerted effort to a really automated version of one of the old versions (carrying the D&D name) would bring in a lot of new blood to the FG community.

leozelig
April 24th, 2013, 01:06
My 2 cp...

Any D&D edition before 3rd
Any retroclone of the above (Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC)

If the topic for discussion is mostly isolated to Castles & Crusades, then the C&C forum is probably more appropriate. But technically, I think it would work here, too.

Not familiar with DW, so can't really comment on that one. :)

sehmerus
April 24th, 2013, 01:49
my 2 cents.. If it has ThAC0, then it can be discussed here. C&C in general should be left in its own forum, especially when spamming the readers by trying to get others to play it instead of (insert ThAC0 game here) I don't mind discussion where material is taken from other systems and applied to my ThAC0 games, but I don't want the "hey if you like D&D then you would really love (fill in old school themed game that isn't ThAC0 based at all)

S Ferguson
April 24th, 2013, 02:10
My 2 cp...

Any D&D edition before 3rd
Any retroclone of the above (Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC)

If the topic for discussion is mostly isolated to Castles & Crusades, then the C&C forum is probably more appropriate. But technically, I think it would work here, too.

Not familiar with DW, so can't really comment on that one. :)

DW is a "retro-game" but not in the traditional sense, It has it's own rule base, different stats, and a more modern, streamlined approach to roleplaying. I'm not really sure it fits the bill, there definitely are elements that are 3e inspired, and it's not truly compatible with traditional THAC0 rules. It might be interesting to discuss to see if there are elements one might be able to pull out to enhance their game.

S Ferguson
April 24th, 2013, 02:10
My 2 cp...

Any D&D edition before 3rd
Any retroclone of the above (Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC)

If the topic for discussion is mostly isolated to Castles & Crusades, then the C&C forum is probably more appropriate. But technically, I think it would work here, too.

Not familiar with DW, so can't really comment on that one. :)

APOLIGIES FOR THE DOUBLE POST

DW is a "retro-game" but not in the traditional sense, It has it's own rule base, different stats, and a more modern, streamlined approach to roleplaying. I'm not really sure it fits the bill, there definitely are elements that are 3e inspired, and it's not truly compatible with traditional THAC0 rules. It might be interesting to discuss to see if there are elements one might be able to pull out to enhance their game.

dr_venture
April 24th, 2013, 02:36
1) AD&D 1e and Basic D&D predate THAC0 - they are as classic as they get. I love AD&D and am not a fan of THAC0, but I would not suggest your system isn't classic as the ones I enjoy.

2) If you're talking about my other post comparing AD&D to C&C, I never suggested that anyone should switch systems, I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. It's not like people can't enjoy more than one game system, or if not, simply skip an article that you're not interested in.

The reason I posted it is that it was already written on my gaming web site, and that I'm under the impression that many classic AD&D fans are unaware of what C&C is and how closely it's related to classic AD&D. Why would it be taboo to make people aware of the similarities? It would have been kinda pointless to post that info in the C&C group - everyone over there already knows what's in C&C.

C&C is unquestionably retro-classic - so much so that Gygax was using it to present the long awaited Castle Greyhawk and City of Greyhawk, as it was as close to original AD&D as he could get at the time.

Also, 'spamming' is a rather accusatory term to use, regardless of whether you're referring to my post or someone else. I haven't seen anyone spamming on these forums, which is why I like it here so much.

JohnD
April 24th, 2013, 03:18
2) If you're talking about my other post comparing AD&D to C&C, I never suggested that anyone should switch systems, I'm sorry you interpreted it that way. It's not like people can't enjoy more than one game system, or if not, simply skip an article that you're not interested in.

The reason I posted it is that it was already written on my gaming web site, and that I'm under the impression that many classic AD&D fans are unaware of what C&C is and how closely it's related to classic AD&D. Why would it be taboo to make people aware of the similarities? It would have been kinda pointless to post that info in the C&C group - everyone over there already knows what's in C&C.

C&C is unquestionably retro-classic - so much so that Gygax was using it to present the long awaited Castle Greyhawk and City of Greyhawk, as it was as close to original AD&D as he could get at the time.

Also, 'spamming' is a rather accusatory term to use, regardless of whether you're referring to my post or someone else. I haven't seen anyone spamming on these forums, which is why I like it here so much.

Don't worry about it dr_v - on the internet tact and decorum are far too often mythical abilities.

opusaug
April 24th, 2013, 03:28
Don't worry about it dr_v - on the internet tact and decorum are far too often mythical abilities.
Did you just see a unicorn trample that puppy? :D

Doc, I can imagine you didn't mean it, but you did come across a bit like a recruiting poster.

dr_venture
April 24th, 2013, 04:19
Doc, I can imagine you didn't mean it, but you did come across a bit like a recruiting poster.

Some context: that comparison was written about 2 years ago for my long time gaming friends who are now separated by distance. We've all been AD&D players together since high school, in the same campaign, no less. I wrote it in preparation for a FG game using the C&C ruleset (didn't know about OSRIC at the time). They didn't know anything about C&C, and I was just trying to be thorough and answer as many questions as possible before the game.

So here's my mea culpa: Those guys are all really distracted and busy, and making games happen can be hard. I was worried that they didn't understand how easily they'd pick up C&C, and that the game might fall apart due to that misconception. So yeah, now that I think about it, I did kinda sell the system by hilighting how easy much of it was in comparison. When I posted it here, I never dawned on me that that would come across as dumping on classic D&D!

So my apologies, all... didn't mean to say C&C is better than AD&D, though I can see it may have come across that way! They're different in some ways you may or may not appreciate, but there are many similarities, too. Of all the versions of D&D, AD&D 1e definitely my fave and it's why I've been watching and participating in this group. If I hadn't stumbled into C&C by happy accident, it's probably what I would be running my Greyhawk campaign with right now.

I do hope everyone who wasn't aware of C&C is now, and maybe can find some good material for their game, C&C or classic AD&D. The AD&D supplements transfer so easily that I can run them straight from the original text, converting in my head on the fly. I have to think that it's just as easy to convert back to AD&D, which is good for this community. If you don't mind doing a little conversion, that compatibility opens up a lot of pretty good supplement materials for your AD&D game. The Troll Lords stuff for C&C is very retro/classic, and well produced, and is worth checking out even if you play AD&D 1e. That's the kind of info I'm trying to contribute - sorry for the confusion :)

Answulf
April 24th, 2013, 06:51
Doc, you have absolutely nothing to apologize for.

How many of us have found a great new game by hearing, "if you liked that game, than you will probably like this one too..."

damned
April 24th, 2013, 14:25
Maybe its just nostalgia but I think there is still a large old school community and I believe a concerted effort to a really automated version of one of the old versions (carrying the D&D name) would bring in a lot of new blood to the FG community.

it also seems that the *majority* of gronards i encounter on the net dont want to play their games on the net... sadly...

damned
April 24th, 2013, 14:37
my 2 cents.. If it has ThAC0, then it can be discussed here. C&C in general should be left in its own forum, especially when spamming the readers by trying to get others to play it instead of (insert ThAC0 game here) I don't mind discussion where material is taken from other systems and applied to my ThAC0 games, but I don't want the "hey if you like D&D then you would really love (fill in old school themed game that isn't ThAC0 based at all)

i dont get the big deal in THAC0 or ascending AC... its exactly the same numbers and system except one seems to follow on from other rules better than the other... im not saying which one i think follows on better <weg> but either way there is little difference...

as to recruiting for C&C games... im also running one of those... but im all full up just now...

and to follow on that line of thinking - honest, im *not* trying to hijack this thread - i bought FG so i could play some old school D&D because despite all the games on my bookshelf, it was all i had experience at. i grabbed C&C because i was told it was a good old school ruleset and had plenty of bells and whistles. and they were right on both fronts. it IS old school gaming and heavily influenced by Gygax and lots of fun and easy to use and the ruleset works pretty darn well too.

any ways... i hope i havent knocked too many apples off the cart... i like old school gaming and i think C&C fits the bill... just saying :) ive got absolutely nothing against any other version i just think that with the limited amount of time ppl have to put into these things programming a whole new ruleset for a limited audience is possibly not the best use of ppls resources - but thats just one opinion...

honestly - im not meaning to be a troll! i hope its not coming across like that...

S Ferguson
April 24th, 2013, 17:15
Nope, you're not coming across as a troll (unless you're currently sitting under a bridge). This is the entire purpose of this thread. To determine a common ground for forum users. If you have any C&C information that's compatible with, or a house rule that can be applied to, D&D or AD&D, then post it in the forum, however straight C&C material or comments belong in it's own "Gygax" forum (with 892 posts so far which at least beats Call of Cthulhu - I'm a CoC fan as well as a C&C fan, so I feel I can make the odd comparison).

opusaug
April 25th, 2013, 03:54
At the risk of sounding like I'm contradicting myself, the "recruiting poster" comment was an attempt to validate the impression of some, not to denigrate the work of others. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a post in this forum to compare and contrast games so we can learn what is and isn't "Classic", and a little bit of cheerleading during the discussion isn't going to kill anyone. I agree there's no need for a mea culpa here, Doc.

As for THAC0, my experience past 2e is limited, so I'm still a little unclear what supposed benefit came from doing whatever came after. Is the 3.5/4e armor class system anything like what they do in C&C? I've read through the starter PDF for that (still waiting for my copy of the PH) and while I admit it's a "cleaner" system, I wouldn't say it's "better" - I've got enough math skills that I can count both down and up equally well. ;)

S Ferguson
April 25th, 2013, 04:21
At the risk of sounding like I'm contradicting myself, the "recruiting poster" comment was an attempt to validate the impression of some, not to denigrate the work of others. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a post in this forum to compare and contrast games so we can learn what is and isn't "Classic", and a little bit of cheerleading during the discussion isn't going to kill anyone. I agree there's no need for a mea culpa here, Doc.

As for THAC0, my experience past 2e is limited, so I'm still a little unclear what supposed benefit came from doing whatever came after. Is the 3.5/4e armor class system anything like what they do in C&C? I've read through the starter PDF for that (still waiting for my copy of the PH) and while I admit it's a "cleaner" system, I wouldn't say it's "better" - I've got enough math skills that I can count both down and up equally well. ;)

Good. 'Cause you'll also need them to resolve rolls on the Siege engine resolution system, which is a fair bit out of the woods for AD&D.:)

dr_venture
April 25th, 2013, 06:42
opusaug - thanks, dude. C&C is what it is - praps not the system for you, no worries. It a non-issue, because as long as you have a game you enjoy, that's all that matters. Keep your eye on the C&C supplements, though, as you may get some mileage out of them for your game of choice.

As for my background and why C&C appeals to me, it has a lot to do with the fact that I more or less skipped 2e through the various 3es. THAC0, the few times I used it, was awkward - obviously simple math is simple math, but the way it was conceptualized was such an awkward thing to me that it left a poor impression, and I had little desire to return to it. At the time I just played Rolemaster, then got out of gaming for quite a while.

More recently, since finding FG, I played a bit of 4e and actually enjoyed it as its own game, but at some point I realized that I'd rather just play the original 1e, if for no other reason than because of my familiarity with it. Since that wasn't an option in FG at the time, I wound up trying C&C and stumbled into the perfect game for my tastes.

My personal irritation with AD&D 1e was the lack of real mechanic for dealing with skills, unusual situations like fighters climbing walls, etc. Since C&C has the SIEGE Engine for quickly resolving those issues, it resolved my biggest game mechanic problem. It's very forgiving of customization and a good system to use my old house rules with, so again, another bonus for me. Also, as I've gotten older, it's just too hard to keep track of all the little specific rules that I know some really love about 1e - again, C&C smooths all that out and provides a non-complicated rules system that's easy for me to run, so for me C&C has been a perfect fit.

Obviously those are all my personal reasons for preferring this very similar game-flavor to classic D&D - for me it is definitely better for those and other reasons, but there's absolutely no reason for you to have the same reaction as I.

Game on!

damned
April 25th, 2013, 10:08
i remember my first game of d&d back in about 1981... i rolled a 16 for dex and was so bummed i got a negative modifier for my ac from my great roll... that is why i think THAC0 makes less sense - because pretty much all other modifiers were good if they were positive and bad if they were negative. as to simple math. yep. there is NO difference between ascending and descending ac's except of course the direction.
ultimately - i dont really care about rulesets. i like the style of game that early d&d and other retro rulesets provide for. as to the mechanics - i just want it to be easy for me as dm to make a determination and easy for the players to follow and to agree to my determinations... sometimes players will argue a ruling or point out something i missed - sometimes i concede.... :)

S Ferguson
April 26th, 2013, 16:17
i remember my first game of d&d back in about 1981... i rolled a 16 for dex and was so bummed i got a negative modifier for my ac from my great roll... that is why i think THAC0 makes less sense - because pretty much all other modifiers were good if they were positive and bad if they were negative. as to simple math. yep. there is NO difference between ascending and descending ac's except of course the direction.
ultimately - i dont really care about rulesets. i like the style of game that early d&d and other retro rulesets provide for. as to the mechanics - i just want it to be easy for me as dm to make a determination and easy for the players to follow and to agree to my determinations... sometimes players will argue a ruling or point out something i missed - sometimes i concede.... :)

Yeah, I find simple mechanics of the more modern games as a old grognard then roleplayer, a bit of a sigh of relief although I still can flip sides and go with THAC0 if the need strikes me, I too skipped 2e AD&D, mainly because, at the time, I was content with 1e AD&D. Mabye somebody with 2e experience could delineate the differences between 2e and (the more familiar to me) 1e and 3e rules.

Cheers,
SF

Griogre
April 27th, 2013, 02:39
As I remember, the primary difference between AD&D and AD&D 2nd was skills were no longer an optional rule, and Clerics/Druids spell levels topped out at 9th instead of 7th level.

opusaug
April 27th, 2013, 05:10
As I remember, the primary difference between AD&D and AD&D 2nd was skills were no longer an optional rule, and Clerics/Druids spell levels topped out at 9th instead of 7th level.
There was a lot more to it than that. 2e was an attempt to be more structured and feel less like a patched together collection of house rules. It organized the classes into four groups - warrior, wizard, priest, and rogue, and all the classes placed into one of the groups and used the same experience table. All classes top out at 20th level for humans, and racial maxes were raised.

Wizards used spells collected from the separate magic-user and illusionist lists in 1e, and broken up into "schools". The mage was a generalist and could pick spells from any school, and "specialist wizards" - like the illusionist - could only use some of the schools.

Priests were reorganized in a similar way, with the cleric being the generalist class, and the druid being "an example" of a "priest of a specific mythos".

Paladins and rangers could only cast priest spells from certain spheres, which made them play more like cleric and druid hybrids respectively. Rangers had additional changes that made them less warrior and more huntsman. Bards were no longer an optional dual-class construct and became a regular class that was kind of a thief hybrid with mage spells and special powers.

Psionics, half-orcs, monks, assassins from the PH, and cavaliers, barbarians, and acrobats from UA were all thrown out.

It's funny, but when it came out I was a big supporter of 2e, and thought the changes were awesome. Now that I look back on it, the hyper-organization just appealed to my OCD personality. All the structure didn't really make the game any easier to play, and it's much more "mechanical" - a lot of the charm from the original cobbled-together rules was lost.

I still think 2e has it's place - I can only think of the original boxed set of Forgotten Realms in terms of 2e, for instance - but it's unique.

dr_venture
April 27th, 2013, 17:36
opusaug: great detailed look - I appreciate it, as I couldn't remember any of that stuff until you mentioned it, and I kept thinking, "Oh yeah" for each of the points :)

I think I initially liked it for the same reasons, too. But as time went by and I poured over the volumes of altered rules, I kept finding things that had been changed or eliminated that I used to like (no monks? I *love* monks!). So I'd have to start house ruling... and at some point I just realized that I was buying more books than I could really afford and learning heaps of new rules for a system that was going to be just as house-ruled as the last system... the one I already knew how to play and which was looking less and less inferior... just organized differently with different emphasis in places.

That lead to a long distraction with the idea that "I just need to find the game that 'gets it ALL right'"... a search that was ultimately endless, and kinda pointless. I finally realized that for me, all systems have high points and low points, but none are perfect, and I shouldn't expect them to be. My problem was that I was focusing too much on the game system, and not enough on what I was doing with the game. Once I figured that out, the system became a lot less critical, and classic D&D came back to front (or in my case C&C as a close approximation).

Griogre
April 27th, 2013, 20:07
... snip
It's funny, but when it came out I was a big supporter of 2e, and thought the changes were awesome. Now that I look back on it, the hyper-organization just appealed to my OCD personality. All the structure didn't really make the game any easier to play, and it's much more "mechanical" - a lot of the charm from the original cobbled-together rules was lost.

I still think 2e has it's place - I can only think of the original boxed set of Forgotten Realms in terms of 2e, for instance - but it's unique.
I was just like you. I was a big supporter of 2E when it came out, but like you looking back it was the start of the road to a great deal of added complexity for little gain. At the time it seemed like an update not much more than the 3.0 to 3.5 update.

S Ferguson
April 27th, 2013, 20:54
I was just like you. I was a big supporter of 2E when it came out, but like you looking back it was the start of the road to a great deal of added complexity for little gain. At the time it seemed like an update not much more than the 3.0 to 3.5 update.

Or, I'd suppose the 3.5 to "3.7" rules they used to power the "Star Wars Saga Edition." in which a lot of the mechanics for 4e were worked out. This was a prime example of house ruling, almost with every new book that came out. Not that I was complaining at the time. Although I have to admit it's still one of the more "complete" universe games out there, with everything you need in 14 books (although you don't need all of them). It had intrigue, background wars that you could engage in or try to make your way though them, generic classes that could be specialized... I guess I liked the system because it reminded me of the 1e to UA rules changes, and that "cobbled together," house rules that drove the first edition.

The one thing I loved about 1e was you never knew where the rules would take you next. Whether introducing new classes as in UA, or races as in DLA (I loved playing Minotaurs sailing the high seas). TSR at that point was truly a house of imagination.