The state of Post-OSR content

[Malrex]

Can we agree that a person can trumpet "Mine's the best" without saying "Yours is the worst" though? That's generally where I'm finding the friction...

Totally agree. I don't like reading digs on any gaming style really. The 'candy' class comment actually bothers me greatly. It's like me labeling squeen's style the 'brick' style because bricks are boring and then constantly talk and pester about bricks. But I also didn't care to read DP's ambushes on squeen's playstyle either, but that's what happens when people start attacking each other's playstyle. And since I seem to be falling into that trap, I apologize, as I'd rather talk about design and ideas than debate and yell at clouds.

It also seemed like Squeen's last post above seemed more like he had a problem with background or character style (I'm the "One", etc.) which I can totally agree with which is why I was actually confused why he was calling that 'candy' class' when it had nothing really to do with class at all in my opinion as any class could be played like that by a player. But looks like he doesn't want to discuss that and this ship is moving on as I think I'll follow EOTB's advice above.

 

[The1True]

For sure, if we're picking on Candy-ass Players now, sign me up lol!
I play with a guy who always takes monsters or humanoids. He's been playing since '79 and he's played out every permutation of human, dwarf and elf and he wants something different. A lot of us are here for a break from historical realism.

Also, congratulations to us all for making it to 50 friggin pages on this thread I guess?

 

[PrinceofNothing]

Is it the non-humanness, or the Mos Eisley Cantina variety that causes the (perceived) problem? I played in a campaign with no humans, where the primary inhabitants of the area were shifter hunter-gatherers (including all the PCs), with a few dwarves from the mountains and a horde of invading orcs. The shifters were the ordinary and the dwarves were the exotic. It worked reasonably well.

The Mos Eisley Cantina is probably the biggest problem, though if you play some sort of Planescape/FantasyPunk/Cha'alt pastische-cosmopolitan game then its downright desirable. There's something about it in a traditional fantasy setting that engenders trash-tier fantasy worldbuilding and as soon as I figure out what causes it I will start working on a cure. In my experience non-human games end up playing as humans with antlers and a different culture. The number of players that can portray something genuinely alien is very small, and works best in contrast with human beings.

I find reducing the mechanical bonuses encourages people to concentrate on the few species I've planned to appear in the setting rather than fishing across sourcebooks for whatever optimised combination they can construct. If someone still insists on playing something really weird, I throw the burden of figuring out how they're able to function in the campaign back on them, and the burden of that often seems to discourage people. The handful that it doesn't tend to rise to the occasion well enough that I don't mind rewarding their effort and investment with acknowledgement and incorporation.

Sensible, your workaround illustrates that you understand the inherent problem and you tackle it noninvasively.
I always associated RuneQuest/Mythras with the more grounded/mythic sort of fantasy that I enjoy but this is impression only.

Put another way, the best outcome is for each tribe of the great division to sort themselves into like. And that is accomplished by various tribal members touting their way of play as "the best"; the support they provide for this declaration will appeal to like people, and they will sort.

Yes. There is nothing wrong with not only preferring a type of gaming style, but to sing its praises loudly so curious others may try and the tribe may grow. It is a neccessity for the survival of a particular school actually. I agree that one should (mostly) stay away from critisizing things that do not appeal, though if said playstyle becomes a contender for the hearts and souls of the same practitioners, then sometimes a righteous excorication is neccessary as long as one resists the poisoned chalice of hatereading and ye casting of stones at the Unbeliever.

 

[squeen]

Hmm. Where to start. It seems everyone is more content when I don't. It will try to be polite and non-inflammatory.

"Candy class". First take a minute, forget how I or anyone else defines it, and absorb the fact that it does describe a phenomena in D&D. It is so well named (it rhymes!) and we've all seen glimpses of it. It is impersonal and edition agnostic --- but it's ubiquitous enough that we all recognize it
and worried that it might apply to us.

Despite the folks who mistakenly assumed that my dislike for a phenomena I witnessed in 1e AD&D nearly 30 years ago (via paladins, bards) somehow was a condemnation of their play-style or the later editions, let me assure you of my total ignorance. I don't know later editions. You all know that. I SUSPECT that the essence of candy-class play did not become extinct after 1e --- and that WotC played off that human desire to be special in order to sell stuff --- but I don't really know for sure.

This is why I say to you all...I never attacked you. I attacked an idea. I attacked a human failing. If the mark landed too close to home for you, and you thought I was targeting you specifically. I do apologize if my language was not clear. That was never my intent. Hate the sin --- not the sinner.

It was like walking into a bar and saying you don't think drinking is a good thing. I get that. No one likes a party-pooper.

Seems more like playstyle/background then the actual class itself.

Minotaurs? Hmmm..immediately mine would be an angry de-horned minotaur seeking vengeance and new horns, with an incredible fear of mice...

Yes Malrex. Understand the moniker "Candy Class" is more of an idea (that I associate with 1e paladins) than a concrete thing (i.e. particular classes), then you know it's not really limited to classes (it sounds like extra-special races became a thing too) --- and also it's not binary (i.e. not automatically true if you pick a particular class, it's how & why you do it).

You are correct. Anything that is being used to elevate a player's character (and hence the player by proxy) ABOVE the norm. Any attempt to identify oneself as unique and special is prideful. I think it's ugly in real life, and I don't like to see it emerging under a veneer in my D&D game either. I no more want to listen to a player's "special back story" or in-game accomplishments (e.g. "head-shoting" Orcus) than I would want to listen to a rich man brag about all the things he owns or the women he's taken to bed. No class (pun intended).

A "cure" for me, in my games, is just to take away the "special" options. No one else is expected to follow such Draconian measures. Have fun. Enjoy diversity. It would be a dull world if we ALL were minimalists.

Your attempts to counter-insult me with regards to the dullness of my games never really stung because I knew the following little secret: what class you play and what race you choose HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH HAVING A GOOD GAME OF D&D. So, I never took offense. Not from you, nor from DP & T1T when they made references to how old-fashioned and narrow-mined I was. I am fine with either label. It was never thrown into doubt by your jabs because it's something I feel I "know" for certain---i.e. none of that fluffy is necessary for me as a player or DM.

Old men playing chess in the park. Old men playing AD&D. Six of one...it's all good.

I do want to make a polite suggestion to you (Malrex) personally. That example with the Minotaur...and the earlier one with the Librarian. It sounds like you are trying too hard. I don't know if it's just for show (here), or that's really how you play --- but it all reminds me of a scene in Star Trek: The Next Generation when Q take Picard into an extra-dimensional plane of his hyper-advanced race. It looked like an old man sitting on a Midwestern farm porch in a rocking chair next to his dog. Q says that's the only way Picard's mind can grasp his reality. At some point, in an argument with one of his own kind, Q shouts, "Oh yes! We've all taken turns being the dog!"

My point being: it speaks to a boredom with the underlying game. You sound like you are gimping your characters intentionally to create challenge. It speaks of the strange and exotic excesses of a bored upper class. You sound too comfortable. Too safe. Like you are going through the motions of play, but your heart is not in it. You aren't trying to "win" because you know you can't really lose, so you are just putting on some character "performance art" to entertain. If your game were truly a thrill ride, you wouldn't have time for all that side-game shenanigans---you'd just be Indiana Jones trying to get away from that boulder.

Just an outsiders' observation based on what you've written. Please don't (continue) to be offended.

I think his definition of candy race is more or less "doesn't look like a human". Short, squat, or thin human-looking races are barely acceptable.

I think there are good reasons for having players be human. It's not appearance based. Tolkien is my touchstone for most things in D&D, and it's true that hobbits and dwarves in his novels shared a perspective indistinguishably close to human. Their "race" was not very alien.

Contrast that with elves and even Legolas --- he was always distant. We never truly got into his mind or motives much. The elves were beyond human. Very alien. Clearly superior. The desire to BE an elf is the desire to be better-than-human (see above).

Consider this: why are almost ALL novels written from the perspective of a human protagonist? It's because anything else is very difficult to relate to.

So, I offer up the following notions as to why a human-centric world is a good choice:
(1) We can relate and know what "normal" looks like. The faux-medevial base-line is a known quantity.
(2) Folks who play other races, mostly end up making them act human.
(3) It allows the fantastic to remain fantastic. (i.e. it's not so terrifying/amazing when you run into my Minotaur if half the party is already one). Avoids Ren Fair syndrome.
(4) It allows the DM to WRITE for the human perspective. This one is subtle, but oh-so-important.

Can you make it work with a non-human centric world? YOU TELL ME. I am not going to try. That's my choice. I don't think it's insulting to others to say "No thank you, I'm not interested."

Can we agree that a person can trumpet "Mine's the best" without saying "Yours is the worst" though? That's generally where I'm finding the friction...

Really. I am sorry if, on a grumpy day, my preference came off too condescending. I like what I like, but I'm not trying to stamp out the alternate viewpoints. I am very comfortable being a minority opinion here.

It must be the way I say it. Even robertsconley got PO'd a bit at me when I said I was over rules-tinkering. Never turn your nose up at another man's pleasures!

Which brings me too...

 

[squeen]

Oh yeah, absolutely. The drive to criticize that which one declines to use is corrosive. A good healthy approach is to find what you want, and ignore what you know isn't for you. Life is too short to spend time and effort on what isn't for you.

EOTB, in his wisdom, has been saying this all along. In the post that re-ignited this thread, I was trying to tell you all "My Quest Is Over". I wandered around, trying this and that, buying way too much, and discovering how the world has changed in the 30 years while I was frozen in ice---and I've decided to just accept BtB AD&D as my game. I was done with "rules-tinkering" (& buying read-only stuff) and was just going to focus on creating interesting content within its established structure (as best I understand it).

To that end, K&KA is a more comfortable home for me. EOTB's "sorting". It's NOT gate-keeping to want to be surrounded by friendly faces who like what you like.

That said, there are possibly some unexplored universal principles of Good Design. Honestly, it don't know if we've hit upon anything Byrce hadn't previous said. What's more, I think the hobby has so completely internalized his lessons that his once revolutionary stance is becoming the establishment. Folks like Patrick Stewart has started to push back and have now inexplicably labeled Bryce/Melan/Prince as "The Frognards" is a attempt to pigeon-hole their old-fashioned sensibilities. Artpunk Strikes Back!

This notions of focusing on design, and giving constructive feedback...that was the dream. How did we actually do? Has anyone really helped our benevolent host out with his book? <crickets> Maybe we've has a few "moments" of collaboration, but the edition-wars threads generally get more responses---that other stuff feels like work! That said, simple questions do get answered, and we've had some silly fun. Bryce hasn't pulled the plug quite yet.

Someday--probably not until 2024 when my current work-project is done---I hope to invite you all to some on-line play. You can try my dumbed-down, slowly-roasted, restrictive game and judge for yourselves. Sadly, as I've told you all many times, I am not a pillar of Gygax's lightning-in-a-bottle game. My old DM was better. I suspect that somehow, Melan, who started in 1990 (!!) playing 3e (!!) in Hungary (!!) has somehow found his way to be a better exemplar of the golden-age than me. If you can get on his ship before it sails, I recommend that instead---definitely better than watching me fumble through it.

There's probably more, but I've got to call a dealership about buying a used-car for my daughter. This week she's our first to graduate from college (with a BS in aerospace engineering)! Did it "old school" too --- in four years while working part-time! Already has a great job lined up. She's awesome.

 

[The1True]

There's probably more, but I've got to call a dealership about buying a used-car for my daughter. This week she's our first to graduate from college (with a BS in aerospace engineering)! Did it "old school" too --- in four years while working part-time! Already has a great job lined up. She's awesome.

Congratulations buddy!

I think you and I both are pretty exhausted with this subject. I feel like you've fairly read what's been written by those who disagree with you and I've done the same for you. This latest iteration feels like we're working towards a consensus or at least some state better than just 'agree to disagree'. It'd be nice if all parties could walk away without feeling aggrieved.

I sympathize with your desire for BtB play. My group has tried to make it happen in 2 of the last 3 campaigns (there's no BtB in Dark Sun lol). It's like Italian cooking. A few simple, excellent-quality ingredients executed right. I get it. I'd've jammed the 'Like' button if it weren't for that unfortunate turn of phrase. Candy Class. Hell, I might even have laughed, because you're right, porpoise people and magical chosen-ones from splat books designed to transition customers towards the next edition of the current system are indeed candy. But for godsakes dude, you applied that term to PALADINS. That's in the friggin Player's Handbook. Meeting us in the middle on this issue shouldn't be too radical...

This notions of focusing on design, and giving constructive feedback...that was the dream. How did we actually do?

I keep trying to get things started. Stay tuned for a post-mortem on the Great Work we started 2 yrs ago.

Has anyone really helped our benevolent host out with his book?

A little intimidating to edit the editor. My logic has been that I'm looking forward to supporting and reading the final product.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

But I also didn't care to read DP's ambushes on squeen's playstyle either, but that's what happens when people start attacking each other's playstyle. And since I seem to be falling into that trap, I apologize, as I'd rather talk about design and ideas than debate and yell at clouds.

To be fair DP's ambushes were not on Squeen's playstyle, it was just that Squeen's playstyle was the easiest way for DP to get to Squeen. Theirs was not a disagreement based on playing styles. If you play the shitposting game long enough you do eventually learn to recognize it for what it is.

Hmm. Where to start. It seems everyone is more content when I don't. It will try to be polite and non-inflammatory.

In my humble viewpoint, the problem that you keep running into is that you are very opinionated but also very sensitive to hurting other people's feelings. Now in newschool parleance; that is not a viable build. Any strong opinion is going to get pushback. I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint even if I don't always share it (every once in a while you get bored with something and you want to experiment, so maybe a new class, I get it yes?) so hopefully this will resolve future disputes.

My point being: it speaks to a boredom with the underlying game. You sound like you are gimping your characters intentionally to create challenge. It speaks of the strange and exotic excesses of a bored upper class. You sound too comfortable. Too safe. Like you are going through the motions of play, but your heart is not in it. You aren't trying to "win" because you know you can't really lose, so you are just putting on some character "performance art" to entertain. If your game were truly a thrill ride, you wouldn't have time for all that side-game shenanigans---you'd just be Indiana Jones trying to get away from that boulder.

Don't you ever select 'Hard' when you play a game? If I join a game with a new GM, do you think I immediately go for the MU? That would be unfair to the guy.

I do want to make a polite suggestion to you (Malrex) personally. That example with the Minotaur...and the earlier one with the Librarian. It sounds like you are trying too hard. I don't know if it's just for show (here), or that's really how you play --- but it all reminds me of a scene in Star Trek: The Next Generation when Q take Picard into an extra-dimensional plane of his hyper-advanced race. It looked like an old man sitting on a Midwestern farm porch in a rocking chair next to his dog. Q says that's the only way Picard's mind can grasp his reality. At some point, in an argument with one of his own kind, Q shouts, "Oh yes! We've all taken turns being the dog!"

This was the Star Trek Voyager episode with the suicidal Q (Deja Q If I recall correctly?). They only started portraying the Q continuum as a farmhouse then to illustrate the boredom of omnipotence.

To that end, K&KA is a more comfortable home for me. EOTB's "sorting". It's NOT gate-keeping to want to be surrounded by friendly faces who like what you like.

But gatekeeping is actually good and noble and necessary. Everyone does it, and the people that protest against it end up doing the same thing as soon as they get the reins of power. There is not, nor will there ever be, a place without standards and in-groups and out-groups.
You can either impose them proactively, or eventually have them imposed upon you.

That said, there are possibly some unexplored universal principles of Good Design. Honestly, it don't know if we've hit upon anything Byrce hadn't previous said. What's more, I think the hobby has so completely internalized his lessons that his once revolutionary stance is becoming the establishment. Folks like Patrick Stewart has started to push back and have now inexplicably labeled Bryce/Melan/Prince as "The Frognards" is a attempt to pigeon-hole their old-fashioned sensibilities. Artpunk Strikes Back!

This is excellent and only fair because the entire line of my argument is predicated on separating Artpunk DnD from 'normal DnD for Champions.' If Patrick starts arguing along the same lines he does my work for me by hedging off 'Artpunk DnD' from 'Normal DnD for Champions' and then all the people that don't want 'normal DnD for Champions' can pass their idle time talking about Mörk Borg or posting about Troika on Twitter and all the normal DnD players can go back to playing normal DnD. 'Frognards' is not good rhetoric because it doesn't make any sense, it isn't clever and it doesn't mean anything that Grognard doesn't already say.

This pidgeonholing is to my benefit because:
a) 'Old-fashioned' in a movement predicated on re-creating and re-discovering the Old Ways is a Positive Trait. If I go into something called 'The Old-school Revolution' do I want to go to a guy who says 'I love oldskool stuff' or do I go to a guy that says 'That oldschool stuff is outdated. Here is a game where you can be a twink warlock rocketship pilot.' Hipsters the latter, people that actually want to play DnD the former.
b) It allows me to define myself as knowledgeable, reverent, authentic, scholarly, fantatical, a continuation of a longstanding tradition etc. etc. etc. In contrast Artpunk DnD; Ignorant, imprecise, ill-informed, fake, poseurish, casual etc. etc. etc. Know thine audience.

Please take the above forceful position with a healthy helping of salt. I don't think Artpunk DnD as a whole is a good direction for the OSR because it prioritizes aesthetics over substance and it appeals mainly to hipsters and casuals but I think Patrick Stuart is good, Chris McDowall's Game is good and Emmy Allen's Gardens of Ynn is very good. I don't even strictly hate Mörk Borg although I consider it very shallow.

Someday--probably not until 2024 when my current work-project is done---I hope to invite you all to some on-line play. You can try my dumbed-down, restrictive game and judge for yourselves. Sadly, as I've told you all many times, I am not a pillar of Gygax's lightning-in-a-bottle game. My old DM was better. I suspect that somehow, Melan, who started in 1990 (!!) playing 3e (!!) in Hungary (!!) has somehow found his way to be a better exemplar of the golden-age than me. If you can get on his ship before it sails, I recommend that instead---definitely better than watching me fumble through it

The time difference probably fucks with me joining that game but you can't convince me you can't spare 4 hours on a sunday evening every once in a while. You wanna go do it, just do it, no more of that defeatist talk.

 

[Beoric]

There's something about it in a traditional fantasy setting that engenders trash-tier fantasy worldbuilding and as soon as I figure out what causes it I will start working on a cure.

I think it occurs when none of the races in the setting have an established place in the world, or an established culture. At that point adding more races that are only distinguishable superficially or mechanically doesn't really have any impact. If nobody's special, then nobody's special. So I think the cure is for the setting to develop rich cultures with defined places in the world. That sets settings like Dark Sun or Eberron apart from the more superficial Forgotten Realms.

Also, mainstream adventure writers tend to assign races to NPCs in an apparently random fashion, so again we have people learning to play from crappy modules.

In terms of implementing it in your game, it is possible that some players may need their nonhuman characters to have a backstory to in order keep the player anchored in the PC's nonhumanness, and the DM may need to be involved in setting up the backstory. So you are a 125 year old first level elf who grew up around humans? All your childhood friends grew old and died, what kind of relationship do you have with their grandchildren? Your adolescent friends are at various stages of their lives. Most are married with families, while you are barely out of your adolescence. What affect does that have on you, are you mature beyond your years, or do you act like the kid brother who never grew up?

The other factor in implementation is the NPCs need to react to the PC according to what they know of his culture and place in the world. If he breaches his cultural protocols, other members of his culture will notice and react accordingly. NPCs from outside of his culture will react according to what they think they know about his race and culture - complete with misinformation and prejudices. In short, the player gets the experience of being part of that race and culture because the world treats him like his is part of that race and culture.

Has anyone really helped our benevolent host out with his book?

Editing an actual book is a lot of work. I mean, it requires some really deep reading, and any rewrites and suggestions should try to use the author's voice. I fiddled a bit with proofreading the first draft, but the size of the thing was daunting, and it still needed a lot of work at that point (I imagine all my edits were obliterated in subsequent drafts). I may have another look when it is further along (@bryce0lynch, where are you at with it?).

The time difference probably fucks with me joining that game but you can't convince me you can't spare 4 hours on a sunday evening every once in a while. You wanna go do it, just do it, no more of that defeatist talk.

It's a lot harder when your time is not your own, and your players are in the same boat. Squeen's kid's graduation probably took up a lot of time in various ways even before he got to car shopping, and much of it was no doubt not in his schedule. Me, I spent yesterday evening teaching my kid to assemble Ikea furniture while trying not to do it myself (it took about 5 times as long, but that's not the point, is it?). Randomly coming up with 4 hours can be doable, but having a handful of people predictably come up with 4 hours at the same time can be very hard.

 

[The1True]

It's a lot harder when your time is not your own, and your players are in the same boat. Squeen's kid's graduation probably took up a lot of time in various ways even before he got to car shopping, and much of it was no doubt not in his schedule. Me, I spent yesterday evening teaching my kid to assemble Ikea furniture while trying not to do it myself (it took about 5 times as long, but that's not the point, is it?). Randomly coming up with 4 hours can be doable, but having a handful of people predictably come up with 4 hours at the same time can be very hard.

But that's your party social contract. I mean if you sign up for weekly old-boys hockey and pay your rink fees, you tend to show up every week no matter what, right? Gotta work overtime? Sorry, I've got a thing on Tuesdays. Gotta go to a PTA meeting? Sorry, I've got a thing on Tuesday. Can you put the kids to bed for me tonight? Sorry; Tuesday; thing. Only illness, death and maaaaaaybe birthdays/holidays should supplant your weekly thing.
Now if you're juggling a bunch of different games, you're probably going to have less of an easy time fighting it out.

Weekends are terrible for a long running game. You're never going to win out against all the crap that crops up on the weekend.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

I think it occurs when none of the races in the setting have an established place in the world, or an established culture. At that point adding more races that are only distinguishable superficially or mechanically doesn't really have any impact. If nobody's special, then nobody's special. So I think the cure is for the setting to develop rich cultures with defined places in the world. That sets settings like Dark Sun or Eberron apart from the more superficial Forgotten Realms.

Having an established background is a big thing yeah. In this I probably suffer from Cassandra's curse; a lifetime of reading too much fantasy/sf has rendered me impervious to the lovingly constructed albeit naive cultures of your friend Barry the GM, who adores Game of Thrones and keeps urging you to watch The Walking Dead. Using an established base gives people more to work with. It's why I got into reading history in lieu of fantasy. You can work out permutation X of the feudal system to an almost infinite degree of depths and season it to taste, but inventing something from wholecloth takes much more effort, skill and a lot of knowledge. There are probably some big fat GM's with a belt that says 'TPK' and 1.5 kg polyhedral dice made of pewter that can pull it off (although at the Big Fat GM level you probably know and wield history) but for most newbs it is a bridge too far, you run into Planet of Hats territory pretty soon. Then again, none of that really matters if you are going to bash dungeons until battle fatigue takes them.

Insert nine page hagiography on the virtues of Herodotus's history, the divers cultures of Tacitus's Germanica, Xenophon's Anabasis etc. etc. etc.

Weekends are terrible for a long running game. You're never going to win out against all the crap that crops up on the weekend.

Man are you kidding? Lockdown fatigue has crippled everyone in my neighbourhood so no one has shit to do anyway. Sunday evening is pretty doable, most people will be staying home anyway, they wont be home too late because of work on monday etc. etc.

 

[Grützi]

@Prince:
It was Voyager Season 2 Episode 18 called "Death Wish" One of the better Voyager episodes IMO.

If I join a game with a new GM, do you think I immediately go for the MU? That would be unfair to the guy.

Let me think on that

It's a lot harder when your time is not your own, and your players are in the same boat.

Amen to that Brother. As a father of two little kids and with me and my wife both having jobs time to game can sometimes be hard to find.

Now move along with this nice thread

 

[Malrex]

Thanks for the unasked for opinion/judgement/mansplain/therapy session. The "I'm not attacking you, but I'll attack you" way you go about things. " If your game were truly a thrill ride, you wouldn't have time for all that side-game shenanigans" --ok, you know best I guess doc. You must truly be a master DM. Your jedi skills in visualizing and determining how my group plays is also amazing and uncanny.

"what class you play and what race you choose HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH HAVING A GOOD GAME OF D&D." Apparently it's an issue though because that's what we have been arguing about this whole time--so I'm not convinced you truly believe your own hypocritical statement.

Anyways, have fun with your games. And try a paladin someday. In my opinion, it's one of the hardest classes to play correctly (i.e. it does not taste like candy), that is...if you roleplay and deal with 'side-game shenanigans' and not just push around bricks.

 

[EOTB]

Always keep you knives sharp, but only for those that hop over the fence into your own backyard looking to piss in the flowers.

 

[Beoric]

I probably suffer from Cassandra's curse; a lifetime of reading too much fantasy/sf has rendered me impervious to the lovingly constructed albeit naive cultures of your friend Barry the GM, who adores Game of Thrones and keeps urging you to watch The Walking Dead. Using an established base gives people more to work with. It's why I got into reading history in lieu of fantasy. You can work out permutation X of the feudal system to an almost infinite degree of depths and season it to taste, but inventing something from wholecloth takes much more effort, skill and a lot of knowledge.

Yeah, I figure the best tool in a DM's toolkit is a broad liberal arts education.

 

[squeen]

I'd've jammed the 'Like' button if it weren't for that unfortunate turn of phrase. Candy Class. Hell, I might even have laughed, because you're right, porpoise people and magical chosen-ones from splat books designed to transition customers towards the next edition of the current system are indeed candy. But for godsakes dude, you applied that term to PALADINS. That's in the friggin Player's Handbook. Meeting us in the middle on this issue shouldn't be too radical...

I think it's significant that I'm critisizing a class from the edition I play (EOTB Rule 0). I've even used paladins as NPC. But I cannot deny the evidence of my eyes. The paladin is the Mercedes-Benz of the 1e classes. They became the example of class ostentation when there wasn't anything "better" to show off (e.g. head-shot-ing Orcus with your super-ninja). If I use the term everyone else does, Prestige Class, you might be confused into thinking it's a positive appellation, when I am in fact against what that elitism represents and think it's bad for business.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "meeting in the middle" --- what does that look like on my part? Do I publicly state that the Sun goes around the Earth to avoid a lynching? Candy-class-ism is just something I find bothersome. I hold no power over any of you, and I'm content to keep silent about it, unless asked.

Agree whole heartedly that peaceful coexistence is preferable. Which brings me too..

In my humble viewpoint, the problem that you keep running into is that you are very opinionated but also very sensitive to hurting other people's feelings. Now in newschool parleance; that is not a viable build.

I'm never sure what to do when Prince tells me I'm too sensitive...or very opininated! It always makes me pause and consider the source...

But, yeah. I prefer gentle ribbing and everyone getting along. There was a time when diversity of thought was allowed, even among friends. Has that ship sailed?

Don't you ever select 'Hard' when you play a game? If I join a game with a new GM, do you think I immediately go for the MU? That would be unfair to the guy.

I usually select "hard" only after I've won or grown bored of a game---with is very rare, because I almost never play a game I've gotten bored of. Too many other things to do in life. I haven't had to combat boredom in a long, long time. Last time I was truly bored, they published Holmes Basic.

This was the Star Trek Voyager episode with the suicidal Q (Deja Q If I recall correctly?). They only started portraying the Q continuum as a farmhouse then to illustrate the boredom of omnipotence.

Sorry. I've borked my Star Trek references. I watched Voyager, but except for a certain actress who had been a Northwestern University classmate of mine, I was not too enthralled. In contrast, Next Gen was watched religious by myself and college roommate. And the original series was much beloved by my old DM --- even atypically more than the original Star Wars when it first came out. He was perhaps the first true intellectual I ever had the pleasure of knowing.

Despite my mis-reference, it's a wonderful mental touchstone---don't you think?

But gatekeeping is actually good and noble and necessary. Everyone does it, and the people that protest against it end up doing the same thing as soon as they get the reins of power. There is not, nor will there ever be, a place without standards and in-groups and out-groups.
You can either impose them proactively, or eventually have them imposed upon you.

It's a logical stretch to go from common-place to "noble". Either way, I think its ok to gather in groups with similar interests. If that weren't true, I be hard pressed to say that we are truly free. Idealistically, I'd prefer an open door policy---but I'd be willing to shut it if a mob is going to come in a trash the place.

'Frognards' is not good rhetoric because it doesn't make any sense, it isn't clever and it doesn't mean anything that Grognard doesn't already say.

Maybe if all three of you were French it would make some sense. Confused the heck out of me. I respect Patrick and his immense creativity, but his games are weird. He's clearly bored by D&D and has got a whole lot of Warhammer 40K in him.

The time difference probably fucks with me joining that game but you can't convince me you can't spare 4 hours on a sunday evening every once in a while. You wanna go do it, just do it, no more of that defeatist talk.

I won't even try to convince you until you rectify the cognitive-imbalance that is perverting your understanding: you sir are clearly a bachelor.

I think it occurs when none of the races in the setting have an established place in the world, or an established culture. At that point adding more races that are only distinguishable superficially or mechanically doesn't really have any impact. If nobody's special, then nobody's special. So I think the cure is for the setting to develop rich cultures with defined places in the world. That sets settings like Dark Sun or Eberron apart from the more superficial Forgotten Realms.

Beoric, I feel that if anyone can pull off the multi-culture game it's you. You have a passion for it, and it's impressive...but it's not my cup of tea. Not as a DM, and maybe not even as a player---although I think I could enjoy it for a short while in a well run campaign.

Beyond gaming, multi-culturalism just doesn't excite me. I honestly wouldn't care if there was only one language in the whole world. I may get over that in the last act of life---perhaps if my wife and I are lucky enough to travel as much as we'd like. We backpacked through the countryside and tiny villages of northern Spain for several week in 2019. I loved meeting friendly people and running into all the Europeans on the Camino trail (except the French ). I enjoyed new foods, we did our best to speak Spanish (my wife is quite good, me...not so much...but that didn't stop me from trying!). That was a great "adventure" for us --- but I can't see any of that translating into D&D game-night. Interesting NPCs and fantastic places are cool dressing --- but there is only so much pretend cultural assimilation I want. As I'll get to in a second, the crux of it may be that I'm just not that much into the ROLE playing. I also have a low tolerance for introspective and scenic novels with no decisive action (e.g. Enders Game vs. all of its flaccid sequels).

 

[The1True]

Agree whole heartedly that peaceful coexistence is preferable.

Fair enough. You keep things lively around here and I'm always happy to see you around. I guess the price of posting a lot is the odd lynch mob...

 

[squeen]

Thanks for the unasked for opinion/judgement/mansplain/therapy session. The "I'm not attacking you, but I'll attack you" way you go about things. " If your game were truly a thrill ride, you wouldn't have time for all that side-game shenanigans" --ok, you know best I guess doc. You must truly be a master DM. Your jedi skills in visualizing and determining how my group plays is also amazing and uncanny.

"what class you play and what race you choose HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH HAVING A GOOD GAME OF D&D." Apparently it's an issue though because that's what we have been arguing about this whole time--so I'm not convinced you truly believe your own hypocritical statement.

Anyways, have fun with your games. And try a paladin someday. In my opinion, it's one of the hardest classes to play correctly (i.e. it does not taste like candy), that is...if you roleplay and deal with 'side-game shenanigans' and not just push around bricks.

And I saved the hardest for last.

Oy vey! What a train wreck! I've gone an pissed off the OSR's most affable actor. I am sorry I offended you Malrex. No disrespect of you personally was intended. In my defense I offer this: YOU ASKED ME FOR MY OPINION. TWICE!

You put out there two examples of characters (Minotaur and fighter) and said you wanted to know which would bother me more. You said you were puzzled. I wasn't even going to open my mouth and reply (to anyone)...except you, my pal, ASKED ME.

Careful what you ask for?

You got my opinion: both versions seem bad to me---but for different reasons.

The Minotaur is messy because he's neurotic...but mainly because he's a Minotaur. In my campaign, Minotaur are monsters---the world is not set up to have monsters roaming it's civilized portions. Also...what happens when you meet the other Minotaur---the MONSTER ones!? Gets silly. Silly is fine. But silly is also safe. That's why I picked up on that.

The Vin-Diesel fighter with the long backstory is ALSO bad --- because of the back story. As DM, I would just ignore it and the player would be treated by the established environment as delusional. That could be fun, but the players just don't get the ability to shape reality that way. They have to move the world through in-game action, not flights-of-imaginative-fancy. Sorry. That's just the (old) rules....unless they find a wish spell.

In my response, perhaps I went too deep. The thing that both these characters have in common is a degree of player control of the environment. A savvy player fiddling around with at the boundary of the rules---seeing which ones bend and which ones break. To want to fiddle like that says to me "I am bored of standard D&D". That is not an insult. You are an adult who has played the game for decades. To have grown tired on D&D is reasonable. All of your examples---and I am going solely by what you have posted---say this to me. What else am I to think when you write (paraphrasing) "we generally get bored of our characters around 8th-level and start over..."?

What I wanted for you, what I truly believe would be a wonderful experience for you, is to know a D&D that is as fresh and compelling as perhaps the one you first learned. My message to all who care to listen (with regards to Candy Class, races, etc.) is this: these things are not the road back to bliss. What's more, fixation on your character is a form of navel-gazing. Don't look to your character sheet if you want to recapture the joy of the game. That self-awareness is what stole it from you to begin with.

Right or wrong...that's my belief.

I played the equivalent of Hasbro's d&d (lower case) first and grew bored within a year. I stumbled on to EGG's D&D (upper case) by sheer luck and it thrilled me for a decade before it too faded away. I'm doing my poor man's best-attempt at discerning the dividing line. I am no guru. I am no master DM...but heck, lightning struck twice when I attempted to reproduce it with my kids. Amazingly, the magic was back...even with me on the other side of the screen!

So what do I think I know? Pitifully little.

1. I'm pretty sure the danger needs to be real. The world must challenge. Failure looms.
2. Players need to stay out of the kitchen. They must interact with the world to discover it and change it. All the Candy Class admonitions fall into this category. Players grabbing the reins, knowing too much, min/maxing for personal advantage. Feeling super-safe. Shifting the focus on to themselves. Knowing all the stats and mechanics to reduce the world to numbers. etc. It's all an end-run around the game that simultaneously sucks the joy out of it. To experience the World, we must be of it---not gods above it.
3. The long-game is far and above the best.
4. AD&D/OD&D is not broken. It does not require repair, the old gal can still deliver the goods.

Finally, I allow that there are many different kinds of D&D/RPG fun.

• EOTB's (and possibly Beoric's) strategic war-game type where he wants to know mechanics so he knows which knobs to turn and their effects. For him, I believe the challenge is cerebral. This is a very mature form of the game, but not quite what I'm after.
• Yours (and many, many others) love of role playing. For you folks, the assuming of a mental mask and stepping outside yourself is a big draw. I have never played that way. EGG didn't much care for it, despite the fact that the hobby clearly was heading that direction. People enjoy masquerades and Halloween parties. No doubt about it, and no implied insult! There is a place for this --- but it looks a very safe place to me. Casual fun?
• T1T's Wild-Night-at-the-Disco D&D...but that's a whole other thread I imagine.
• LARP---did anyone listen to Settembrini's interview with Melan? My favorite line of his was, "In the 1990's you had 'We are not greasy role players, we are storytellers...because we are playing vampire.'". Well, I always side with the greasy role-players.
• Let's add to this list the non-game variants of D&D fun: blogging, rules tinkering, zine editing, aspiring artist, bathroom library books...and (least we forget) the dominate one for this forum: genuine content creation!

Where does that leave us? Can you accept that I don't know you or your crowd, but (presumptuously) thought you sounded tired and guessed I knew of some medicine that might revitalize you?

Yes, I played doctor. Forgive my arrogance.

 

[PrinceofNothing]

@Prince:
It was Voyager Season 2 Episode 18 called "Death Wish" One of the better Voyager episodes IMO.

'Origin of Species' I remember as particularly noteworthy, followed by 'Year of Hell' Pt. I & II, 'Schorpion', 'Tinker, Tenor, Doctor, Spy' and the assuredly Guilty Pleasure 'The Bride of Chaotica!.' Voyager had its flaws but its the last real Star Trek imho.

Yeah, I figure the best tool in a DM's toolkit is a broad liberal arts education.

Either broad and extensive knowledge or obsessive focus on a single topic or period of history will suffice. But the best asset is still excellent social skills/charisma/creativity. This is, however, much harder to improve.

I'm never sure what to do when Prince tells me I'm too sensitive...or very opininated! It always makes me pause and consider the source...

But, yeah. I prefer gentle ribbing and everyone getting along. There was a time when diversity of thought was allowed, even among friends. Has that ship sailed?

I did not say that to insult, but matter of factly, to aid. Do with it what you will. Neither quality is a problem in itself but when one combines the two you get into a territory where you both get a lot of friction, like now, and you take that friction to heart, which you tend to do. I am extremely opinionated and direct but this is managed by my sanguine disposition, thus even if I get agitated it rarely bothers me for long. I also don't mind conceding a point or the odd mistake.

I don't think that ship has sailed, particularly not here.

I usually select "hard" only after I've won or grown bored of a game---with is very rare, because I almost never play a game I've gotten bored of. Too many other things to do in life. I haven't had to combat boredom in a long, long time. Last time I was truly bored, they published Holmes Basic.

Then we are different. I will only select 'Hard' if I truly LOVE a game. If the game is worth exploring to a greater depth, if I believe that further exploration and mastery will reveal the game in a form that is more refined, more true, more PLATONIC THEN and only THEN is Hard mode selected.

Hard mode is an act of love, not boredom and frustration.

Despite my mis-reference, it's a wonderful mental touchstone---don't you think?

Sorry. I've borked my Star Trek references. I watched Voyager, but except for a certain actress who had been a Northwestern University classmate of mine, I was not too enthralled. In contrast, Next Gen was watched religious by myself and college roommate. And the original series was much beloved by my old DM --- even atypically more than the original Star Wars when it first came out. He was perhaps the first true intellectual I ever had the pleasure of knowing.

Despite my mis-reference, it's a wonderful mental touchstone---don't you think?

TOS is amazing, much more OSR then its successors. The hammy acting fades away but the chasm between plots and dialogue then versus the illiterate drivel of Star Trek now is breathtaking.

I think I get the argument you are trying to make, but even if true, what is the problem with it. Every once in a while you get tired of something and you try something else before you eventually return to what you loved about the first game.

I ran Carcosa for...30-40 sessions I think? Its very nonstandard, but it also forced me to learn how to make compelling adventures without the use of wizards or clerics. This actually brought me much more in line with the S&S/pulp roots of DnD then I would have gotten with a more conventional game of B/X.

It's a logical stretch to go from common-place to "noble". Either way, I think its ok to gather in groups with similar interests. If that weren't true, I be hard pressed to say that we are truly free. Idealistically, I'd prefer an open door policy---but I'd be willing to shut it if a mob is going to come in a trash the place.

I join a chess club. I want to play chess. Someone joins the chess club wanting to play snooker. 'Why is everyone playing chess?,' asks the Snooker player to the chess club. 'I hate chess, and people should not be forced to play chess." Then, the nerds in the chess club want to accomodate this new player, and agree to create a new game that is half chess and half snooker. This works reasonably well until a guy shows up wanting to play Monopoly, and his friend who hates games of all kinds but just wants a place to huff paint. Chookeropoly is already starting to get on people's nerves, but to be fair they don't remember all of it because everyone is always a bit woozy after the third sock of paint.

I respect Patrick and his immense creativity, but his games are weird. He's clearly bored by D&D and has got a whole lot of Warhammer 40K in him.

Patrick doing some sort of early era WH40k/Rogue Trader/Eye of Terror stuff would be dope.

I won't even try to convince you until you rectify the cognitive-imbalance that is perverting your understanding: you sir are clearly a bachelor.

Not wrong!

 

[squeen]

I did not say that to insult, but matter of factly, to aid. Do with it what you will.

And I've always taken it that way. Thanks.

 

[Beoric]

Star Trek TOS was essentially written for the stage. Discovery and Picard are written for the screen. These are simply different media, with different storytelling requirements. Hi-res screens means much more of the acting can be non-verbal, and better visual effects means certain elements of the story can be seen rather than relying upon characters to describe them. However, thematically you can draw a straight line from TOS to Picard.

While we are making controversial sci-fi references, there are only two good Star Wars movies: A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back. The cartoons are more consistent and generally better than all of the movies except those two. Although in fairness I stopped watching after The Force Repeats Awakens.

Rogue One is an exception, because Rogue One is not a Star Wars movie. Thematically, Rogue One is a Star Trek movie set in the Star Wars universe.