I still haven’t bought a single OSRIC/LL/S&W product.

[Falconer]

I still haven’t bought a single OSRIC/LL/S&W product.

Don’t read anything into this. I’m not hatin’. But lately I’ve read in various places “OSR” types who bemoan the fact that the “retro-clones” can barely measure a blip on WotC’s radar. I think these people would be shocked to learn there are plenty of Gygaxian gamers who haven’t bought into this “movement”. Personally, I honestly do want to like OSRIC et al., I just haven’t been convinced to spend money on anything yet. Questions:

1. Am I the only 1e DM who hasn’t?

2. Is there anything I “should” buy?

[greygriffin20]

1) no your not
2) though several interesting things have been published nothing that is "gotta have it"

[Abacus Ape]

I purchased "Monsters of Myth", a monster book for OSRIC. It sits in the stack with the other three monster books and has some really neat stuff in my opinion. And even if it is a little rough around the edges, the heart of the thing really shows through. It was really exciting to get a new book after all this time.

[Falconer]

I have nothing but good to say about Monsters of Myth, but I have no need for another monster book. And if I ever did want to use a monster from it, I could just print that page from the PDF for a cent instead of buy the book for $30.

[Dagger]

I've checked out a few products written for those games and for the most part they remind me of fanzine material. There is one product in particular called Stonehell Dungeon that I thought was well done, however. It's a big dungeon similar to the kinds we made as kids. It's sort of a nostalgia piece I suppose, but I like it.

My problem with the types of products you are asking about is that they are trying to recreate a feeling that just can't be recreated. RPGs, modules, dungeons, etc.. back in the day were weird and exciting because they were new. Just like I can't go back to pretending Santa Claus is real, likewise I can't go back to having a feeling of total awe when I read about a teleporter room in a dungeon.

[SemajTheSilent]

What would give you a feeling of awe now?

[Algolei]

What would give you a feeling of awe now?

Historically believable adventures.

I don't mean where the NPCs include historically recognizable people, like Cleopatra or Billy the Kid; I mean where the setting and/or monsters and/or plot fit into a medieval place and period. For instance, an Italian medieval adventure, or a German one, or an English one.

Those are the things that make me go "ooh." And plenty of RPG players make the claim that they've researched medieval-style history, yet it rarely shows in any adventures I've seen.

[Falconer]

I like modules. Especially of the S4 model—town, wilderness, dungeon; new items, spells, monsters. The lower the level the better. What’s out there for OSRIC/LL/S&W that’s good? James, you’ve gotten a few published, right?

[Dagger]

What would give you a feeling of awe now?

RPG-wise? Man, that's a fantastic question. I really have no idea.

[SemajTheSilent]

I like modules. Especially of the S4 model—town, wilderness, dungeon; new items, spells, monsters. The lower the level the better. What’s out there for OSRIC/LL/S&W that’s good? James, you’ve gotten a few published, right?

XRP's upcoming White Dragon Run by me is exactly what you want.

[Falconer]

Alright, well, keep us up to date! I’m afraid I don’t read blogs or Dragonsfoot. I’m on a few other sites that I just skim, but I read everything here.

[rredmond]

Have you picked up any of the free stuff? Modules and such?

I like to see what awes others, you know their take on old-school D&D... though I may be easier to impress. When people accuse that "you only like AD&D 1E best because of nostalgia!!" I usually agree that it is certainly a big reason that I like it so much.

[Algolei]

When people accuse that "you only like AD&D 1E best because of nostalgia!!" I usually agree that it is certainly a big reason that I like it so much.

You don't often hear people say that about chess or poker. Why is that?

[Irda Ranger]

When people accuse that "you only like AD&D 1E best because of nostalgia!!" I usually agree that it is certainly a big reason that I like it so much.

You don't often hear people say that about chess or poker. Why is that?

Because Hasbro hasn't come out with Chess 2nd Ed. and marketed it as "new and in all ways better than that crappy previous edition." You see, such people actually believe that the new editions are in all ways better, so you can't possibly be played AD&D because it's a better game. Must be nostalgia. That's the only reasonable explanation.

[thedungeondelver]

Oh it can't be because you enjoy it. Or, rather, if you do enjoy it, its only because of...

...wait for it...

nostalgia!


Nostalgia's a fat balding guy in his late 50's, wearing a leather jacket, sitting at the 1960's themed diner listening to The Beach Boys

[Algolei]

Because Hasbro hasn't come out with Chess 2nd Ed. and marketed it as "new and in all ways better than that crappy previous edition."

I'm fairly certain they'd have to call it at least Chess 3.5E:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Chess

Go to the bottom of the Wikipedia page and look at references 9 and 10.

[rredmond]

Oh it can't be because you enjoy it. Or, rather, if you do enjoy it, its only because of...

...wait for it...

nostalgia!

I enjoyed it, I swear!!!

Nostalgia's a 40-year old fat balding guy, wearing a Star Trek baseball cap, sitting at the 1960's themed diner listening to Too Old to Rock and Roll

Fixed for truth (in my case).

[Algolei]

Nostalgia's a 40-year old fat balding guy, wearing a Star Trek baseball cap, sitting at the 1960's themed diner listening to Too Old to Rock and Roll

Fixed for truth (in my case).

But you weren't even born yet in the 60s. Shouldn't you be sitting in a 1970's themed diner listening to Seasons in the Sun and wearing a Land of the Lost cap?

[SemajTheSilent]

Alright, well, keep us up to date! I’m afraid I don’t read blogs or Dragonsfoot. I’m on a few other sites that I just skim, but I read everything here.

Here it is: http://www.xrpshop.citymax.com/catalog/ ... 847943.htm

[rredmond]

Looks great, I love those level 2-4 adventures... is there going to be a PDF release too?

[Flambeaux]

I don't have much of the new stuff, but what I do have I am impressed by. Maybe its because I didn't start playing until the cusp of the 2E era and never got to play a lot of the seminal modules. I dunno. What I do know is that some folks are producing great stuff that I enjoy reading, would enjoy running, and that I find is stimulating my creativity to, in turn, create my own stuff. Which is all I ask of my game product purchases.

And products like the S&W White Box (the digest-sized boxed set that BHP produced) are allowing me to share the game I love with my kids. I don't have to hand them a tattered, stained, 3rd hand book or a super-expensive, ultra-rare, keep-it-in-polybag set of the 3LBBs. I can give them their own, new stuff and help them plan adventures.

And that is why I'm a big fan of what is being put out for OSRIC, LL, S&W, etc. If I had the collections I believe some of you own, and the memories to go with them, I'd probably look sideways at a lot of this new material and have little interest. But I don't and I never will. Nor will my kids. But the "OSR", whatever it is or is called, does allow me to give that gift of imaginative adventure.

YMMV and all that...

[1stEditionRules]

Players don't want to be stuck playing The Keep on the Borderlands forever. New modules have to be bigger, and have bigger rewards. Before you know it, modules become so unfairly biased in favor of the players that they can become immensely wealthy and powerful by going through a single dungeon, and in some cases completing the dungeon isn't even required to reach that point. It's happened in every MMORPG that exists so why wouldn't it happen in p&p games? Too many players think getting a handful of silver and copper coins for slaying a roving band of 4 or 5 level 1 monsters isn't sufficient compensation anymore. They want those level 1 monsters to be carrying magic items out the wazoo. What a bunch of freakin babies. Risk/reward ratios need to be ratcheted back down to some semblance of sanity.

[Flambeaux]

Risk/reward ratios need to be ratcheted back down to some semblance of sanity.

Or DMs need to become more creative in how they offer risks, how they distribute rewards, and what happens "off screen".

Frankly, whether it makes them babies or not (and I don't think it does), giving outsized rewards for undersized risk is not a bad thing. If it is what players enjoy (isn't the point of this to have fun?) and if, as it was BITD from everything I've read and heard, player luck and skill earned it.

Lots of chests full of magic items and/or thousands of gold pieces sitting around waiting for a lucky few to get in, take it, and get back to town without ever encountering a monster in the campaigns of the 1970s. Avoiding a fight was sometimes the more skillful, and enjoyable, exercise for the players. But the treasure was easy come, easy go.

Part of the problem today in dungeon design, generally speaking, is the expectation that the only source of treasure is from fighting monsters. Video games encourage this and module designers working in the modern idiom (even if the accidents are pseudo-medieval and fantastic) have embraced this. The way to change this may be as simple as giving an overview to new players, or a reminder to experienced players, that they don't need to kill anything that moves to get XP and there are unguarded treasures to be found.

[1stEditionRules]

Risk/reward ratios need to be ratcheted back down to some semblance of sanity.

Or DMs need to become more creative in how they offer risks, how they distribute rewards, and what happens "off screen".

Frankly, whether it makes them babies or not (and I don't think it does), giving outsized rewards for undersized risk is not a bad thing. If it is what players enjoy (isn't the point of this to have fun?) and if, as it was BITD from everything I've read and heard, player luck and skill earned it.

Lots of chests full of magic items and/or thousands of gold pieces sitting around waiting for a lucky few to get in, take it, and get back to town without ever encountering a monster in the campaigns of the 1970s. Avoiding a fight was sometimes the more skillful, and enjoyable, exercise for the players. But the treasure was easy come, easy go.

Part of the problem today in dungeon design, generally speaking, is the expectation that the only source of treasure is from fighting monsters. Video games encourage this and module designers working in the modern idiom (even if the accidents are pseudo-medieval and fantastic) have embraced this. The way to change this may be as simple as giving an overview to new players, or a reminder to experienced players, that they don't need to kill anything that moves to get XP and there are unguarded treasures to be found.

If I was to design a dungeon where players could just run in, grab the treasure, then run out without a fight then I'd also be making damn sure that getting that treasure back to town was nigh on impossible. There'd be bandits and highwaymen at every turn and if they did manage to get the treasure home, I'd be sure the local thieves guild or at the very least, the royal tax collector, knew about it. Nothing should come too easy.

[Irda Ranger]

If I was to design a dungeon where players could just run in, grab the treasure, then run out without a fight then I'd also be making damn sure that getting that treasure back to town was nigh on impossible.

Eh, let the PCs "win" occasionally. Not everything has to be tough. Any game that includes "You Die, No Save" should also include the possibility of easy winnings. Not to mention it encourages further risky behavior by the players (it's like a drug that way).