David Johansen
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- May 4, 2017
- Messages
- 5,988
- Reaction score
- 12,197
THAC0 is used in the first edition DMG. There's a stat listing for all the monsters in the Monster Manual in the appendix that uses it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Marriage.So I'm sure a number of people in this thread can relate to both liking something like B/X. but also having a laundry list of things they'd personally change to B/X given their druthers.
How exactly does one label that weird relationship ?
Also, if you have those conflicted feelings (I certainly do), do you ever wonder when exactly it stops being a B/X derivative, or B/X with some switched-out parts and really becomes something of its own, and different enough to be considered its own game?
Admittedly, I suspect this is something that matters more to GM-Tinkerers than the average player at the end of the day.
In OD&D, fighter levels 1-3 use the same row on the attack table... (and saving throw tables also).Fighters in AD&D get -1 to THAC0 every level after 1st.
In D&D, they got -2 to THAC0 every three levels.
Your point's valid for 1st and 2nd level Fighters... it's one area where I prefer 3e. Just a weird level to use for an example, since it's the one level where Fighters on both versions of the game improved.
In OD&D, fighter levels 1-3 use the same row on the attack table... (and saving throw tables also).
In AD&D, a fighter getting +1 every level is an optional rule.
Hey I get that. But I think most of you also understand what I’m getting at about, basically, how much of the framework still needs to be there before it becomes something else?
although I have met quite a few people who consider any sort of RPG of any sort, no matter how removed, to be “ dungeons and dragons “.
it isn’t even like calling all facial tissue Kleenex. It’s closer to calling any disposable paper product Kleenex.
I understood your question, I simply didn't see any point in trying to provide a definitive answer. We can debate it all day without coming to a definitive answer and even if we did, what use would it be?Hey I get that. But I think most of you also understand what I’m getting at about, basically, how much of the framework still needs to be there before it becomes something else?
One of Old School D&D virtues is that it really encourages people to tinker with it. Drawing some line that can't be crossed or it ceases to be D&D goes against that spirit, in my opinion.I understood your question, I simply didn't see any point in trying to provide a definitive answer. We can debate it all day without coming to a definitive answer and even if we did, what use would it be?
Has any OSR game achieved anything resembling market longevity? Am I sniffing glue? It seems to me that each one builds a fanbase for a few years, then gets dropped in favor of the new hotness. I guess Pathfinder, maybe C&C if those count.
I dunno, it seems like flagging creator support might be a factor as well. I mean, it can't be easy to keep cranking out product for something that's not hugely profitable.
I know Labyrinth Lord used to be pretty popular, but it seems to have fallen out of favor. Swords & Wizardry is definitely still supported, how is it doing?
I see OSE has become very popular, but I always hear praise for its layout, rather than its rules. Is it just the OSRIC of B/X?
I guess it depends on how you classify the OSR. Personally, I’d put Sine Nomine (Kevin Crawford’s) work into that grouping. Stars Without Number has gone through 2 editions and a number of supplements and still seems to be recommended when someone is looking for a generic SF game.Has any OSR game achieved anything resembling market longevity? Am I sniffing glue? It seems to me that each one builds a fanbase for a few years, then gets dropped in favor of the new hotness. I guess Pathfinder, maybe C&C if those count.
Swords & Wizardry has been out for 15 years and still going strong. Frog God Games have a real winner with their World of the Lost Lands campaign setting. S&W has the best all-in-one complete box set for OSR beginners.Has any OSR game achieved anything resembling market longevity? Am I sniffing glue? It seems to me that each one builds a fanbase for a few years, then gets dropped in favor of the new hotness. I guess Pathfinder, maybe C&C if those count.
I dunno, it seems like flagging creator support might be a factor as well. I mean, it can't be easy to keep cranking out product for something that's not hugely profitable.
I know Labyrinth Lord used to be pretty popular, but it seems to have fallen out of favor. Swords & Wizardry is definitely still supported, how is it doing?
I see OSE has become very popular, but I always hear praise for its layout, rather than its rules. Is it just the OSRIC of B/X?
Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea has been around since 2012, recently released a third edition and has a long string of successful Kickstarters. There are more than a few OSR titles that have appear to have steady sales and interest but your post seems to be referring to buzz on the Internet which can fluctuate wildly.Has any OSR game achieved anything resembling market longevity?
I don't actually disagree entirely, nor am I trying to kick somebody out of the tent or declare myself Pope of B/X.One of Old School D&D virtues is that it really encourages people to tinker with it. Drawing some line that can't be crossed or it ceases to be D&D goes against that spirit, in my opinion.
Labyrinth Lord has 718 supplements on DriveThru, and it only faded because OSE came along, which is, for all practical purposes, the exact same rules but with a cleaner layout. It's all just people playing B/X non-stop.Has any OSR game achieved anything resembling market longevity? Am I sniffing glue? It seems to me that each one builds a fanbase for a few years, then gets dropped in favor of the new hotness. I guess Pathfinder, maybe C&C if those count.
I dunno, it seems like flagging creator support might be a factor as well. I mean, it can't be easy to keep cranking out product for something that's not hugely profitable.
I know Labyrinth Lord used to be pretty popular, but it seems to have fallen out of favor. Swords & Wizardry is definitely still supported, how is it doing?
I see OSE has become very popular, but I always hear praise for its layout, rather than its rules. Is it just the OSRIC of B/X?
Definitely. My point is that it is the exact same game is LL, the previous hotness.I think the new hotness is Old School Essentials.
Lamentations of the flame princess is, imho, an improvement from bx and is still going.DCC is the obvious exception but for some strange reason gets excluded from the OSR by some, mostly because I've seen others say it is based on 3e/d20 although I'd say it has so many changes it is really its own beast.
I was going to say this and has at least last I checked good production values to M Moonglum 's point about what helps make them succeed. If it's star has waned it seem due to the controversies it's provoked and at least according to some a reduction in quality of adventures(I think)Lamentations of the flame princess is, imho, an improvement from bx and is still going.
Even if it is waning, it's had a good run by RPG standards. ACKS has put out a solid product line and is still going. Then there is Stars Without Number, which has been around forever by OSR standards. It has a large number of supplements and is still going, and is just one of Kevin Crawfords games. I don't think game have less longevity in the OSR than anywhere else the industry.I was going to say this and has at least last I checked good production values to M Moonglum 's point about what helps make them succeed. If it's star has waned it seem due to the controversies it's provoked and at least according to some a reduction in quality of adventures(I think)
Yeah. They've gone through some changes in recent years. Their best selling author was involved in controversy (and we know how the rpg community handles that well), they've changed course to a more realistic historic setting for their adventures than previously, they almost went bankrupt from over extending. All that said they still come out with good adventures but the osr community has since caught up to that quality and production standard.I was going to say this and has at least last I checked good production values to M Moonglum 's point about what helps make them succeed. If it's star has waned it seem due to the controversies it's provoked and at least according to some a reduction in quality of adventures(I think)
One reason the OSR gets away with it is that the actual rules sections of OSR games tend to be short, allowing most of the book to be setting/classes/magic/monsters/new systems or whatever else the appeal of this particular OSR game is.And the great thing about osr to me is that even if there is a boat ton of derivative stuff I see it all as interchangeable. So I see new core books from a different publisher simply as a product supplement to what I'm currently playing.
There's a poorly defined term 'OSR-Adjacent RPGs' bantering about now, so I'm assuming if a rpg shifts too much from the core D&D mechanics it is emulating, yet still captures the old school spirit of TSR D&D, then it is 'OSR-Adjacent".I don't actually disagree entirely, nor am I trying to kick somebody out of the tent or declare myself Pope of B/X.
I do though think that somewhere along the way, enough changes have been made that game isn't D&D anymore.
I don't know exactly where that line is drawn. Maybe it's impossible to draw.
Is White Lies also D&D, for example?
DriveThruRPG
www.drivethrurpg.com
Is Black Petal Hack ?
DriveThruRPG
www.drivethrurpg.com
I could see an argument realistically going either way on something like that.
I don't know you can look on this list.Has any OSR game achieved anything resembling market longevity? Am I sniffing glue? It seems to me that each one builds a fanbase for a few years, then gets dropped in favor of the new hotness. I guess Pathfinder, maybe C&C if those count.
It is profitable but it is also work done in the time one has for a hobby for most of us. You can push it pretty far like you can any hobby but unless your skill is that good or you have a little luck in popular interest there comes a point where the next step is just too much. Or just as common your life circumstances change enough that the time you have for a hobby shrinks.I dunno, it seems like flagging creator support might be a factor as well. I mean, it can't be easy to keep cranking out product for something that's not hugely profitable.
Still chugging along, I use it as the foundation for my material and it helps. It helps that Matt Finch is more active about his personal creative projects.I know Labyrinth Lord used to be pretty popular, but it seems to have fallen out of favor. Swords & Wizardry is definitely still supported, how is it doing?
It more popular than OSRIC in it's niche.I see OSE has become very popular, but I always hear praise for its layout, rather than its rules. Is it just the OSRIC of B/X?
This is why I love the OSR. I can grab a Swords and Wizardry adventure and use it in Old-School Essentials with very minimal conversion work.Another consideration is how cross-compatible all this stuff is. Yeah, there is an OD&D/S&W scene, and a BX/LL/OSE scebe and the Black Hack scene, and the DCC scene, but its fairly easy to use adventures from any of these scenes with the OSR game of your choice.
Right? I enjoy learning about other people's OSR houserules but house rules from other systems generate as much enthusiasm as "lemme tell you about my character" unless that person has an excellent understanding of the system.The tinkering nature of the OSR also means that a lot of GMs are genuinely curious to get a look at other people's rules builds.
Has any OSR game achieved anything resembling market longevity? Am I sniffing glue? It seems to me that each one builds a fanbase for a few years, then gets dropped in favor of the new hotness. I guess Pathfinder, maybe C&C if those count.
I dunno, it seems like flagging creator support might be a factor as well. I mean, it can't be easy to keep cranking out product for something that's not hugely profitable.
Since you were so kind to bring it up, let me just take a minute to plug the new ACKS Dwarf book:Even if it is waning, it's had a good run by RPG standards. ACKS has put out a solid product line and is still going.
The biggest issue I saw with ACKS is that it has its own system for AC which I don't recall being statistically different than the standard. It's just different to be different. Given that the core of the system is mostly B/X with the BECMI proficiency system added, it creates a needless compatibility issue.Interestingly, the description mentions that the book was designed to not need to be used with ACKS as such, and will include conversion notes for other OSR games. It'll be interesting to see how that works out, and which specific other games (other than OSE) it goes with.
That sounds like the kind of argument that comes from people that think anything more creative than re-writing Keep on the Borderlands for the 100th time is heresy against Gygax. If taking some mechanical inspiration from modern D&D excludes you from the OSR, you have to throw out a lot of games like Chris Gonnerman's Basic Fantasy, which was a vital part of the early OSR.DCC is the obvious exception but for some strange reason gets excluded from the OSR by some, mostly because I've seen others say it is based on 3e/d20 although I'd say it has so many changes it is really its own beast.