Cranky Halaster's scathing indictment of Old School Revival

Post by **Halaster Blackcloak** » Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:48 pm

Well, I have some enforced downtime. Worked myself near to death with 3 jobs and school full time, plus (and I am not kidding) it seems like every damned person I have been in contact with this past week has been sick. So of course, I wore down my resistance and caught a nasty cold. Feel like crap. So I decided to pass the time between steaming my sinuses open (so I can breathe for a change) and shivering under the sheets by browsing some D&D related blogs and websites.

Maybe I'm just crankier than usual due to this cold, but WTF is up with all this "Old School Revival" bullshit? There seems to be half a million D&D/AD&D clones out there, and all for what? Why are so many people trying to re-invent the wheel? AD&D is perfect (was perfect...nothing after 2nd Edition is even technically AD&D or even related to the true game). You can't improve upon it. All those clones or wannabe AD&D games are simply derivative nonsense. I tried looking into Castles & Crusades, for example, when it first came out. And all I could feel was..."why bother?". What good was it?

The bottom line is that AD&D is a work of genius and cannot be "improved" upon, nor can any inferior (read:clone) version of it satisfy the urge for the game. AD&D did everything it was supposed to do. It allowed me total freedom to create fun, compelling, exciting games for my players and it was a source of challenge, enjoyment, camaraderie, and excitement for me and my players. All this nonsense that started with the dreadful Player Options crap from 2E, which ultimately ushered in the Age of Crap Gaming known as 3E, 4E, and so on amounts to nothing. And yet none of it improved the game one bit. None of it. Players options did nothing to enhance the game. It was all power-gaming nonsense. 3E dumbed the game down by catering to the lowest common denominator (or as I like to refer to it, the lowliest common denominator), and 4E turned the game into crack for crack addicts. Neither of those versions, despite their claims to the contrary, provided any more "freedom" to players or the DM. It was akin to putting an Olympic athlete in a straight jacket and leg irons and saying "You have so much more freedom of movement now!". And idiots actually fell for such an absurd claim!

So why are people trying to re-invent the wheel? If you love AD&D, then why not just play AD&D? Why would anyone in their right mind ever need Castles & Crusades or Labyrinth Lord or Sword & Sorcery? What need do they fulfill that AD&D cannot? I don't buy the whole "we need new material" bullshit argument, because for example, you could literally spend years of game time exploring the first Ruins of Undermountain box set alone. It's a fact that probably 99% of all gaming groups don't even last long enough to fully explore that one game product! And what about other mega-adventures like Night Below, Return to the Tomb of Horrors, Temple of Elemental Evil, or the 1E GDQ series? Any of those alone could last years. Plus there are hundreds of other published AD&D adventures, thousands if we count what's available in old issues of Dungeon Magazine.

If I retired today, lived another 50 years and did nothing but game 12 hours a day for those 50 years using the material I have now, supplemented by my own work, I'd never be able to finish it all in this lifetime!

And I won't even get into how disgusted I am by OSRIC (nothing more than a blatant and failed glory grab by a bunch of misguided fanatics) or C&C, with Gygax lying to his fans and ripping them off by trying to sell Castle Zagyg as Castle Greyhawk, when the two were in fact totally unrelated. Maybe it was karma that killed his ass. Sucks when you try ripping off the fans who made you crazy successful.

Ah humbug! My nose is stuffy. I'm getting off now. Just a quick rant to vent some stress. I just don't see why anyone cares about watered down wannabe clones when they can have the real thing. Why buy generic stuff when you can (for less money even!) own the real thing? Why buy a cheap repro when you can own an original? Am I missing something here?

Post by **tedopon** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:30 pm

Nice to hear from you, hope you get well. I was sick a few weeks back.
I disagree with most of what you said in your post.
What's the status on ROU3?

Website · Post by **Tawnos76** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:00 pm

While I like AD&D better then the clones of the game it is no longer supported by its new owners Hasborg (Hasbro).

While those who want new material have to do with Castles and Crusades and the other clones to get new material without stepping on any D&D licensing. I have found many AD&D items at thrift stores and E-bay it is not always easy or inexpensive to do so (Ebay being not always cheap). If you like PDF's then that is one way to go but many of those are not legally transferred.

I would love to see a revival of the real deal (AD&D) but until that day I will continue to look out for OOP books. I have many PDF's but would rather have the actual book to flip through and still look for them at thrift stores and yard sales.

While others who want to play immediately and lot look around or play with someone else's books they have the clones of AD&D they can participate in.
I still try to get anyone I know into AD&D and not the newer renditions of it. I did not mind 3.5 to much but 4th is truly a different game that utilizes the D&D name.

Still looking forward to the BIP Undermountain edition.

Post by **tedopon** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:17 pm

@Tawnos
I feel closer to how you do. I liked 3rd edition once I finally decided to play it after 3.5 was released. I actually have a few 3.x books and a few Pathfinder books.
I still prefer 1e AD&D for Dungeons and Dragons, though. Thing is, it is getting harder and harder to find regular players for anything pre 3.x. I think that's one of the benefits of the so called OSR, in that it puts old rules on new shelves.
And you D&D guys know nothing of obscurity. I'm first and foremost a Runequest guy, and repurchasing the stuff I owned years ago is not easy. Incredibly expensive and rare. Be glad for the somewhat overpriced D&D stuff on ebay, trust me.

Post by **Varl** » Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:24 pm

Sorry to hear you're sick, Hal. Get well soon.

As for your post, I can't agree with your thoughts that AD&D is perfect. If it were truly perfect, I wouldn't have as many house rules as I have. Then again, I'm a born tinkerer when it comes to AD&D's systems, always looking for a better way to run a system (i.e., a system I prefer over the core).

Take NWPs, for example. While the core system works fine for what it is and does, it's not without its bizarre peccadilloes that have troubled me since I got into this hobby, such as land-based riding based on wisdom and starting out with a +2 bonus, which means priests of all people, will typically be the world's most skilled mounted troops. Now this ordinarily wouldn't be an issue for priests of Tempus or some other martial faith that utilizes and fights while mounted more than your average priest, but they're only one faith.

I think there's little consistency, rhyme or reason for how NWPs are officially created, so I decided to change how they work in my AD&D game.

The majority of core elements of AD&D I still enjoy and use as is, such as THAC0, negative ACs, and the like.

As for the clones, I'm not really that interested. I do appreciate their effort to enable the possibility of new gaming material that could be easily and easier incorporated into an AD&D game, seeing how Wizards has abandoned its longtime, loyal supporters from the 80s and 90s, I don't have an issue with independent developers and fans attempting to step up and create supplemental or clone/AD&D compatible material.

If they create something I'm not interested in, I'll simply pass, however if they create something intriguing that could easily plug into my AD&D (be it supplement or adventure), why revolt against that? Technically, BIP is a supplement to AD&D, so choosing to embrace it as a cool addition to AD&D is changing core AD&D, and I can't endorse that kind of rigidity cause I like the idea BIP represents.

Post by **Halaster Blackcloak** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:44 am

Tepedon wrote:

And you D&D guys know nothing of obscurity. I'm first and foremost a Runequest guy, and repurchasing the stuff I owned years ago is not easy. Incredibly expensive and rare.

Oh man, I'd love to get my hands on some old Runequest stuff! I KNEW I should have bought it all up before the old hobby store in my old neighborhood closed up!

Post by **Halaster Blackcloak** » Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:02 am

Varl wrote:

Sorry to hear you're sick, Hal. Get well soon.

Thanks Varl! Feeling a lot better now that the herbs and supplements kicked in. It was the nagging, unproductive dry cough that I hated most. God, I hate that! Makes your head throb, your throat hurt, and your back ache.

As for your post, I can't agree with your thoughts that AD&D is perfect. If it were truly perfect, I wouldn't have as many house rules as I have. Then again, I'm a born tinkerer when it comes to AD&D's systems, always looking for a better way to run a system (i.e., a system I prefer over the core).

Well technically, I agree there. I didn't mean to say it's perfect as in flawless. I find demi-human level limits to be asinine, for example, and have tweaked them out of the game entirely. But what I'm basically trying to say is that AD&D works perfectly for what I want it to do. It enables me to engage a group of players in a fun, challenging fantasy game. Yeah, we all tweak a few things here or there. But then again, the rulebooks did state they were just guidelines, not necessarily hard core rules written in stone.

Take NWPs, for example. While the core system works fine for what it is and does, it's not without its bizarre peccadilloes that have troubled me since I got into this hobby, such as land-based riding based on wisdom and starting out with a +2 bonus, which means priests of all people, will typically be the world's most skilled mounted troops. Now this ordinarily wouldn't be an issue for priests of Tempus or some other martial faith that utilizes and fights while mounted more than your average priest, but they're only one faith.

Yeah, that example has always frustrated me on trying to understand why they did that. Maybe because clerics have to travel a lot? Eh. That doesn't make sense either.

I think there's little consistency, rhyme or reason for how NWPs are officially created, so I decided to change how they work in my AD&D game.

Yeah, that is one section that could have used a more coherent, sensible re-write for an unfortunately never released 2.5E (for lack of a better version name).

As for the clones, I'm not really that interested. I do appreciate their effort to enable the possibility of new gaming material that could be easily and easier incorporated into an AD&D game, seeing how Wizards has abandoned its longtime, loyal supporters from the 80s and 90s, I don't have an issue with independent developers and fans attempting to step up and create supplemental or clone/AD&D compatible material.

Me either. I just don't see why people seem to be so intent on finding a new game that satisfies them. It's like there are so many AD&D "fans" writing and blogging and what not, and it's always "Wow, this is close to how AD&D was, but unfortunately, it falls short as far as _________".

And my response is "Well why the hell aren't you playing AD&D then?". I don't get it. They want the "new" game to be just like AD&D, then criticize it for not quite being AD&D, so why aren't they just playing AD&D? It seems some just prefer questing for a suitable substitute game than they are in playing the true game.

If they create something I'm not interested in, I'll simply pass, however if they create something intriguing that could easily plug into my AD&D (be it supplement or adventure), why revolt against that? Technically, BIP is a supplement to AD&D, so choosing to embrace it as a cool addition to AD&D is changing core AD&D, and I can't endorse that kind of rigidity cause I like the idea BIP represents.

Same here, I'd pick something up if it seemed useful or fun, and just convert it over. It just seems like everyone is competing over who can best re-invent the wheel, which seems pointless. But then, BIP is different, because it's not a clone or a generic version (Judge's Guild, etc, although I do like a lot of that stuff). It's strict AD&D material. Just not written by hacks from TSR/WOTC.

As for the questions about the project, it's just been on hold. The three main developers (Varl, Doirche, and myself) have just been having a hell of a time with all the chaos and stress in the real world, with the economy tanking and job changes and health issues and what not.

With me it's been more a time and motivation issue. With 3 jobs, school full time (career change!) and my martial arts and other training, it's been hard to get time to breathe, much less write. One more solid sale in real estate and I can quit the weekend job. Yay!

So I hope to be able to get back to writing soon. We've over the hump and have a majority of the work done. Of course, we had another artist flake out on us, just couldn't produce material in any sort of sane, timely manner, and this after putting in several hundreds of dollars of down payment!

Luckily it got refunded, otherwise I'd be writing this post from prison for strangling someone.

Post by **McDeath** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:35 am

I'm glad to see this forum is still hobbling along. How's everyone been doing this month?

Post by **Varl** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:10 am

Not bad here. We have a current game running every other Saturday, so gaming life is pretty good.

Post by **Mira** » Sat Apr 16, 2011 11:49 pm

That was one thing I liked about 1E AD&D, the NWPs were NOT defined, and therefore were not a big impact on the game. I didn't hate the 2E NWPs entering in, but we never really gave them a lot of notice, they existed, but didn't define us.

I don't want a lot of rules for stuff that is only flavor, I want to deal with the flavor stuff on the fly. And I don't want the stuff I consider flavor to force me to do things a certain way. I DO think the flavor stuff is important, I just don't want a lot of rules in the way. I liked that people could just try stuff and I could roll some dice and decide if it worked, without some rules involved. Of course you don't want that to work like that for combat, but for flavor stuff, why not?

Mira (Schizophrenia beats being alone)

Post by **Varl** » Sun Apr 17, 2011 8:27 am

I've always been the opposite, Mira. I like the flavor defining my NWPs. I never liked the uncertainty of making a rule decision on the fly over some NWP, and then hoping I either remember how I did it last time or write it down and not lose the note so I remain consistent. I don't trust my memory that well. Heh. I do think NWPs can be defined well enough to cover most situations, but still leave plenty of room for those situations I can't think of.

Post by **Halaster Blackcloak** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:50 pm

I'm more in line with Varl on the NWP issue. I like having a simple set of rules to define NWPs so I don't have to make rules on the fly and then remember how I ruled each time. I agree with Mira though about the flavor stuff being better served by letting it be free-form. I think for me, the issue is that NWPs end up being used fairly regularly, at least in my campaigns (as I had mainly ROLE players as opposed to ROLL players, and they really got into NWP issues). But I figured, I get to inject so much flavor through the writing and choice of events, setting, NPCs, etc, that I don't mind a mechanic for something like NWPs because they seem more rule-oriented to me than flavor oriented.

Post by **McDeath** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:27 pm

I just reread the entire thread (had been a while), if 4e is crack it must be some of the worst crappiest crack ever. I looked at one monster and said Fuck it! At least I could half assed decipher 3-3.5. 4e is just shit. You guys do realize that 5Es will have Yugio and cards and shit.... oh wait that's 5Ds... gah too many shit cartoons for me.

I don't mind retroclones but it doesn't mean I'm going to buy them. Hasbro of the Coast cannot stop me from producing my own material for nonprofit situations. If they want to waste their time by trying they must really have nothing better to do.

Post by **Halaster Blackcloak** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:35 pm

I dread even hearing what crap 5E will be!

You know, people can call me elitist, I don't care. I am. I insist that AD&D was best when it was a small niche hobby for geeks and nerds. It attracted mainly intelligent, creative, sane people back then (for the most part). But any time you dumb something down for the stupid masses, you get short bus level literature. It's just how life is.

I don't (and never have) seen a need to apologize for embracing superiority. Only slackers and losers shoot for the bare minimum. My favorite line in a movie (or one of them at least) was in The Rock with Sean Connery. He said "Your best? Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen!

Oh, thaco is too hard! Nonsense! Learn basic math!

Bah! Arch-mages get to be elitist!

Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:38 am

I came across a post the other day on one of the AD&D blogs, and once again this had me all discombobulated. The blog post listed a bunch of AD&D and D&D clones. Microlite, Labyrinth Lord, Swords and Sorcery, Basic Fantasy Roleplaying Game, OSRIC, Gold & Glory, C&C, etc.

WTF? It's like a viral contagion! Everyone wanting to personally re-invent the wheel. Because, you know, everyone believes they can re-invent the wheel better than the other guy who tried to re-invent it.

And so, like a virus, the desire to re-create D&D or AD&D for the umteenth time just keeps spreading. Why re-work the rules into a watered down version when you can just use the god-damned original for Orcus's sake!

Imagine if people took all the energy they put into basically reprinting the original rules to conform to some legalese standard and just used that energy to create actual original material!

I just find it mind-boggling. I would never, I mean never waste my precious time trying to re-create a set of rules that already more than satisfactorily served its purpose. What the hell purpose does that serve? Just to see my name on a document?

Instead, I use that time to do two things...develop new material for the actual original game, and develop my own campaigns to play in. You know, something fun and useful!

Now granted, I can understand why someone like Rob Kuntz is working on his new material using a D&D clone. He's a professional writer and one of the all-time greats. That's his life blood. He publishes written material for a living, and he needs to be able to write D&D type material, since that's what he enjoys writing. So for him to do that, it makes perfect sense. But not for every fan or publishing company who can whip together a PDF file!

I know it's almost absurd for me to sound off on this, since I don't care about the clones, don't purchase them, and don't create them. It just literally boggles my mind that every time I read a D&D related blog post, there seems to be yet another person trying to re-create the wheel. Like I said, it seems that crazy urge has become a virus. Thank God I'm immune.

Post by **Varl** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:36 am

Heh. After that post, I guess you'll find it funny, Hal, that I'm also working on re-creating some of the rules for my game. Psionics, NWPs, and certain elements in combat just to name three.

You might be asking yourself why bother. True, the existing rules for these systems work for most people. They don't need to be reworked. You're right, they probably don't, but for me, they do. I'm unhappy with the way certain systems perform in AD&D with psionics being the worst offender imo. So, I've taken it upon myself to do something about them, to get a system I can enjoy running, not muddle through or even ban outright because of its oddities. Just as I'm sure many people are happy with the way the original Undermountain was written, others felt differently, and decided to expand upon and improve the setting. What's the difference from editing and adding on to an existing setting vs. editing/changing the way certain core rules systems perform?

Post by **Halaster Blackcloak** » Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:53 pm

Bad Varl. BAD VARL!

Just kidding!

I agree though. When I said AD&D was perfect I didn't mean it in a literal way. What I meant was that it worked, and worked well, and didn't need the "improvements" of 3E or 4E or whatever. And it certainly makes no sense to re-invent the wheel.

But it does make sense to make the tire better.

I'm not a fan of psionics (It's too sci-fi for my tastes, love it in Gamma World but not AD&D), but I'd agree that it could use re-working for AD&D due to psionic monsters. The NWP system works well enough for me, but I can see where it desperately needs tweaks, for example the cleric/horse riding issue.

I'm a big fan of tweaking and twisting and picking and choosing which rules to use (like I'd be caught dead using demihuman level limits!

).

What just boggles my mind is how people are pretty much just renaming certain things, slapping a new coat of paint on it, and calling it a new system. No, it's just AD&D with some minor re-wording. It just amazes me how many clones there are. It's like the Clone Wars in Star Wars where they cloned Boba Fett and now there are thousands of him.