Principia Apocrypha: Principles of Old School RPGs

[EmperorNorton]

I thought all of those as purposeful limitations (Con is likely to not be a major stat for wizards, arcane knights magic is to be a buff not combat magic) that can be optionally 'addressed' by Feats.

Warmagic seems an odd ability if arcane knights aren't meant to cast in combat.

 

[Voros]

Warmagic seems an odd ability if arcane knights aren't meant to cast in combat.

Can't recall exactly but isn't that feature restricted to cantrip spells?

 

[EmperorNorton]

Can't recall exactly but isn't that feature restricted to cantrip spells?

That they won't be able to cast because they can't use somatic components without a focus in hand or a free hand. The only wizard attack cantrips that don't require a free hand are lightning lure, green flame blade, sword burst, and booming blade.... all of which aren't from the core rule book.

 

[Voros]

That they won't be able to cast because they can't use somatic components without a focus in hand or a free hand. The only wizard attack cantrips that don't require a free hand are lightning lure, green flame blade, sword burst, and booming blade.... all of which aren't from the core rule book.

Interesting. Has anyone asked Crawford about it?

 

[Justin Alexander]

While it true that Matt Finch talked about all the things you mention you somehow completely missed his point. Which is stated here

You have to tell the referee where you’re looking for traps and what buttons you’re pushing. You have to tell the referee whatever tall tale you’re trying to get the city guardsman to believe. You have to decide for yourself if someone’s lying to your character or telling the truth.

It is a pen & paper version of live action where it on you as the player to describe these actions not rolling dice or using statistic on a character sheet.

Sure. And, like I said, Finch is full of crap in ascribing this to some fundamental difference in mechanical content.

For example, he says if you want to find a secret panel on the wall in OD&D you can't just roll for it! There's no mechanical check you can make! You have to tell the GM that you're touching the moose head and you have to think about it!

But that's a very specific example, isn't it? Because if it was a secret door instead of a secret panel his entire argument vanishes in a puff of smoke: Not only does OD&D include rules for making a check to mechanically determine whether or not you find the secret door, if you're an elf in the game you can find secret doors without searching at all.

However it suits the time in which it was written because all four points he was making was lost in the sea of the every expanding sea of splatbooks where everything had to have a rule and every rule had its place. Until the primer most were not even aware that alternative to the mainstream thought existed.

No offense, but: Bullshit.

First, the idea that mechanics-only and missing-method resolution didn't exist back in the '70s is nonsense belied by contemporary discussions in APAs, magazines, and books.

Second, the idea that fiction-first resolution was some kind of "lost art" that had been lost to the ages and no one knew about it until the OSR "rediscovered" it is insanely myopic and displays a shocking ignorance of the RPG industry and hobby.

For example, when Finch writes fiction-first advocacy like:

Once you're done describing the area, the players tell you what their characters want to do. Some groups might need prompting. Ask them, "What do you do?" Your job here is to listen to what they players want to do and then identify how to resolve their actions. You can and should ask for more information if you need it.

Can you honestly claim that this was some arcane sentiment that had been banished from mainstream D&D and forgotten by all but a select few?

And where one finds these fundamental principles of old school mega dungeon design and example of them in action.

The Monster Level Tables are on p. 10-11 of Volume 3: The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures in OD&D.

The idea that there were no guidelines in pre-3E D&D for appropriate challenges is baseless.

 

[Justin Alexander]

I prefer SWO (Second Wave OSR)

Those who create second wave OSR products are part of the SWO Line-Up.

They're SWOL.

 

[EmperorNorton]

First, the idea that mechanics-only and missing-method resolution didn't exist back in the '70s is nonsense belied by contemporary discussions in APAs, magazines, and books.

Really good article. Honestly think that even though our styles don't 100% align, you have probably the most useful blog for me personally.

 

[Voros]

I didn't say it was a good reference... ;-)

The two guys behind the creation of the term seem to not be taking it too seriously. One of them btw is WizardThiefFighter aka. Luka Rejec who made UVG and Witchburner for Hydra Cooperative and is an artist/layout designer as well.

 

[robertsconley]

Sure. And, like I said, Finch is full of crap in ascribing this to some fundamental difference in mechanical content.

For example, he says if you want to find a secret panel on the wall in OD&D you can't just roll for it! There's no mechanical check you can make! You have to tell the GM that you're touching the moose head and you have to think about it!

But that's a very specific example, isn't it? Because if it was a secret door instead of a secret panel his entire argument vanishes in a puff of smoke: Not only does OD&D include rules for making a check to mechanically determine whether or not you find the secret door, if you're an elf in the game you can find secret doors without searching at all.

Mmmmm except he has a lot more example in the work than just the moose head.

Pit Trap on page 3
The Ninja jump page 4
Bluffing and Sense motive on page 5

Could he have used a better example than a moose head concealing a secret panel sure. But doesn't change his point.

Which is in this section

The players can describe any action, without needing to look at a character sheet to see if they “can” do it. The referee, in turn, uses common sense to decide what happens or rolls a die if he thinks there’s some random element involved, and then the game moves on.

No offense, but: Bullshit.

First, the idea that mechanics-only and missing-method resolution didn't exist back in the '70s is nonsense belied by contemporary discussions in APAs, magazines, and books.

I wasn't talking about the 70s. I was talking about mid 2000s when the OSR was starting up and D&D 3.5 held sway.

But your comment does bring up another issue, the vitriol and accusation levied at Matt Finch over inventing an imagined past.

Reading over the primer nowhere it is implied or the claim is made that this was the way the game was played back in the 70s.

The opening paragraph

This booklet is an introduction to “old school” gaming, designed especially for anyone who started playing fantasy role-playing games after, say, the year 2000 – but it’s also for longer-time players who have slowly shifted over to modern styles of role-playing over the years.

The opening sentence of the next paragraph

If you want to try a one-shot session of 0e using the free Swords & Wizardry rules, just printing the rules and starting to play as you normally do will produce a completely pathetic gaming session – you’ll decide that 0e is just missing all kinds of important rules.

First paragraph of the Zen chapter.

Playing an old-style game is very different from modern games where rules cover many specific situations. The 0e rules don’t give you much specific guidance, and that’s not because they left out the answers to save space. Treat it like a game you’ve never seen before, a game where the rules give guidelines and the referee interprets those guidelines

The point of the primer is to answer the question of how I run a fun session with older editions rpgs and clone specifically Swords & Wizardry. It is not a treatise on how RPG were played in the early 70s.

This is a point you are not mentioning about the primer.

Can you honestly claim that this was some arcane sentiment that had been banished from mainstream D&D and forgotten by all but a select few?

That is not the claim I made. Nor did I claim the situation was as dramatic as you make it out to be.

However it suits the time in which it was written because all four points he was making was lost in the sea of the every expanding sea of splatbooks where everything had to have a rule and every rule had its place. Until the primer most were not even aware that alternative to the mainstream thought existed.

First, I apologize for my poor grammar. I try to proof but in the end it is what it is. However I do think the part I highlight in bold clearly illustrate context in which I used the word lost.

Lost in the sense it was there but alternatives was getting all the attention. I experienced this directly during my time promoting the WIlderlands Boxed Set, and Goodman Games JG modules.

Second, the idea that fiction-first resolution was some kind of "lost art" that had been lost to the ages and no one knew about it until the OSR "rediscovered" it is insanely myopic and displays a shocking ignorance of the RPG industry and hobby.

That assertion is not supported by the text of the primer. Nor it found in what I wrote. The primer was a product of its time in the mid 2008 to answer the persistent question of how do I use the older editions and the retro-clones.

As for my writings, I consistently wrote in the tone, of "Hey here what I did back in the day, what I did since, hope you find it useful.

Was there a part of the OSR who asserted above and continues to do so. Yes although ironically most of this group will vehemently deny they are part of the OSR. And view most of OSR like myself and Matt Finch as shameless hacks leeching off of the genius of Gygax and Arneson.

I guess there just no pleasing anybody on this.

The idea that there were no guidelines in pre-3E D&D for appropriate challenges is baseless.

Where is this vitriol coming from? I asked where one can find the fundamental principles of megadungeon design. Made no comment on the status of guidelines for appropriate challenges.

And you give me the monster level tables?

The Monster Level Tables are on p. 10-11 of Volume 3: The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures in OD&D.

As dramatic as you made it out to be, this is a little underwhelming. It doesn't answer how Matt Finch undercuts fundamental principles of old school megadungeon design in the primer.

Fourth Zen Moment: Forget 'Game Balance'. Which is about half-right, but again wanders off into nonsense territory by undercutting fundamental principles of old school megadungeon design (the foundational play style of D&D and, by definition, old school play).

Now that I look at it the table undercut your point in light of the Monster determination and level of Monster Matrix on page 10 where it possible but unlikely that 6th level fighter Myrmidons can appear on the 1st level, and a Purple Worm can appear on the 3rd level. Plus that chart has entries going to 13+

The charts support Matt's point about game balance more than it does yours about appropriate challenges.

The old-style campaign is with fantasy world, with all its perils, contradictions, and surprises: it’s not a “game setting” which somehow always produces challenges of just the right difficulty for the party’s level of experience.

 

[3rik]

Sure, but cash works in the context of that sentence in a way that DIY doesn't.

The approved members of #DICKDREAM will determine what is properly DIY and what isn't.

But like I said, we probably shouldn't be talking about this at all. It's just cringy trolling.

 

[Mankcam]

I prefer SWO (Second Wave OSR)

Being the founder of SWO, I definately concur

 

[Baulderstone]

The two guys behind the creation of the term seem to not be taking it too seriously. One of them btw is WizardThiefFighter aka. Luka Rejec who made UVG and Witchburner for Hydra Cooperative and is an artist/layout designer as well.

Knowing it is throw-away joke by Luka Rejec really puts the panic about the name elsewhere into perspective. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[Ulairi]

Those who create second wave OSR products are part of the SWO Line-Up.

They're SWOL.

Great. We are going to get 800 page books now because Size is the Prize.

 

[Baulderstone]

Great. We are going to get 800 page books now because Size is the Prize.

Well, we just had this announced.


Only €674.95.

Admittedly, I am probably buying this. I ran the original in high school, and it was awesome.

 

[Gabriel]

Well, we just had this announced.


Only €674.95.

Admittedly, I am probably buying this. I ran the original in high school, and it was awesome.

Time/Life books presents: The Warhammer Collection. The first magnificent volume is yours to enjoy for $59.00 for 10 days. Keep it, whether you like it or not. Later, you can discover more of the Warhammer Collection. Collect a new volume every month. There IS a minimum purchase and you can NEVER cancel. Start your journey through the Reikland by mailing your coupon today!

 

[Justin Alexander]

Mmmmm except he has a lot more example in the work than just the moose head.

Pit Trap on page 3

... which is the first example I used in this discussion.

Let's refocus on what I actually said: Finch makes the claim that new versions of D&D have rules that OD&D doesn't. Finch's claim is true. But what he ignores, as I've pointed out with numerous examples now, is that there are also a bunch of rules in OD&D that don't appear in new D&D.



Finch focuses only on the Rules in Both and the Rules Only in New D&D categories. He completely ignores all the stuff in the Rules Only in OD&D category. And this becomes even more problematic because, as I've demonstrated, his examples of rules found only in new D&D are frequently wrong (e.g., his claim that there are no mechanics for finding traps in OD&D).

So, for example, Finch says (paraphrasing), "There are no rules for making a mechanical check to see if something is hidden in OD&D! This forces the GM to make rulings!" As we've seen, this claim is actually bullshit, but let's pretend that it was true. So what? It's equally true to say, "There are no rules for determining morale in new D&D! This forces the GM to make rulings!"

Bottom line: Not only are Finch's examples frequently wrong, the conclusions he draws from them are inaccurate because he's been absurdly selective in the example he's choosing.

Reading over the primer nowhere it is implied or the claim is made that this was the way the game was played back in the 70s.

This booklet is an introduction to “old school” gaming, designed especially for anyone who started playing fantasy role-playing games after, say, the year 2000 – but it’s also for longer-time players who have slowly shifted over to modern styles of role-playing over the years.

If you want to try a one-shot session of 0e using the free Swords & Wizardry rules, just printing the rules and starting to play as you normally do will produce a completely pathetic gaming session – you’ll decide that 0e is just missing all kinds of important rules. (...)

Playing an old-style game is very different from modern games where rules cover many specific situations. The 0e rules don’t give you much specific guidance, and that’s not because they left out the answers to save space.

You quote Finch explicitly stating that the 0e rules published in 1974 were specifically designed to be played using the methods described in the Primer, but you don't feel that Finch was implying or claiming that the game was played this way in the '70s? So you feel that Finch was literally claiming that Arneson & Gygax specifically designed the game to require a style of play that no one, including themselves, was actually doing?

C'mon, man.

Now that I look at it the table undercut your point in light of the Monster determination and level of Monster Matrix on page 10 where it possible but unlikely that 6th level fighter Myrmidons can appear on the 1st level, and a Purple Worm can appear on the 3rd level. Plus that chart has entries going to 13+

I don't find your argument that "OD&D's system for determining appropriate challenges for a given dungeon level says 6th level fighters can appear on the 1st level of the dungeon and D&D3's system for determining appropriate challenges for a given dungeon level only says that 3rd level fighters can appear on the 1st level of the dungeon, thus clearly demonstrating that OD&D has no system for determining appropriate challenges for a given dungeon level!" to be as compelling as you seem to think it is.

(DMG3.0 p. 120)

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

People are focusing on the first part of the acronym, but it is the DREAM part that annoys me. "DIY Rules Everything Around Me." Maybe its the again punk in me, but using DIY in that context just bugs me. DIY is an attitude from within you. Saying it rules everything around you, like an oppressive tyrant, makes no sense at all. It is pure word salad.

I suspect it's a Transplants reference, made less cool.

 

[Necrozius]

As noted earlier, it was originally a reference to the Wu-Tang Clan:



Which seems far too badass and cool for a bunch of Twitter nerds who are concerned that a "sword" is too aggressive and scary.

 

[robertsconley]

Throughout your posts, the main focus on your criticism has rested on the examples that Matt Finch has given.

(e.g., his claim that there are no mechanics for finding traps in OD&D).

A problem with this particular form of debate is not citing sources.

Here are Matt Finch's mentions of traps

Spoiler: Quotes from the Primer

Page 2

Spoiler: Quotes from the Primer

Many of the things that are “die roll” challenges in modern gaming (disarming a trap, for example) are handled by observation, thinking, and experimentation in old-style games.

Page 3 an example of a Pit Trap which is too long to cite in full but Matt Finch does say.

Note: The modern-style GM in these examples is a pretty boring guy when it comes to adding flavor into his game. This isn’t done to make modern-style gaming look bad: we assume most people reading this booklet regularly play modern-style games and know that they aren’t this boring. It’s done to highlight when and how rules are used in modern gaming, as opposed to when and how they aren’t used in oldstyle gaming. So the modern-style GM talks his way through all the rules he’s using, which isn’t how a good modern-style GM usually runs his game.

Comments on the example of the Pit Trap
The example of modern mechanics illustrates the use of a spot check and a disarm check to resolve the situation with the pit trap.

The example of old school mechanics illustrate how the players describe what they are doing as if they are there trying to deal with the pit trap. They could use a pole but they lost it earlier. It dark to see things clearly so the player cleverly pour waters on the floor and notices it draining. They don't have a good way of jamming the mechanism so they find there clearance on either side.

One Page 5
You don’t have a “spot” check to let you notice hidden traps and levers, you don’t have a “bluff” check to let you automatically fool a suspicious city guardsman, and you don’t have a “sense motive” check to tell you when someone’s lying to your character. You have to tell the referee where you’re looking for traps and what buttons you’re pushing.

From Page 6

The party has no “right” only to encounter monsters they can defeat, no “right” only to encounter traps they can disarm, no “right” to invoke a particular rule from the books, and no “right” to a die roll in every particular circumstance.

From Page 9 from the section on seaching a Moose Head for a secret panel.

In other words, die rolls don’t provide a short cut or a crutch to discover and solve all those interesting puzzles and clues scattered throughout a dungeon. The same goes for handling traps (unless there’s a thief class), and the same goes for

You might be saying to yourself: “God, that sounds time-consuming.”....

From page 10 from Your Abstract Combat-Fu Must be Strong

He can try to slide on the ground between opponents, swing from a chandelier and chop at a distant foe, taunt an opponent into running over a pit trap … whatever he wants to try. That doesn’t, of course, mean that he’ll succeed. It’s your job to handle these attempts colorfully and fairly, choosing whatever probability you think is the right one and rolling some dice.

On page 12 in a discussion about resource management but used in the context of something that could drain the party's resources or cause a delay

Now the Old School Primer is a 13 page document. Written as quick primer. Matt Finch doesn't describe all the naunces mechanics of OD&D. But as I will show further in the post. If the character is not a dwarf, doesn't have a particular spell, doesn't have a particular magic sword, doesn't have a particular wand then Matt assertion is correct. There is a relevant mechanic found on page 9 of U & WA

Traps are usually sprung by a roll of a 1 or a 2 when any character passes over or by them. Pits will open in the same manner.

But what OD&D 3 LBB doesn't specify how a character can resolve the situation if they are not a dwarf, have a spell, magic sword, or wand. And foremention elements only tell that there is a pit trap there. Not how to disarm it.

Now I would think that most folks would wind up using the Secret Door mechanic mentioned on page 8 of U&WA for detecting traps. With some exception if you search and roll a 1 or 2 on a d6 you find a secret door. So it reasonable to adapt that for finding traps.

However it definitely detail like in later editions and later RPGs. And what there is tersely written without a lot of naunces. Which people can read for themselves blow.

Wrapping it up
I do not see where Matt that OD&D didn't have mechanics for finding traps. I think it unreasonable to criticize Matt on not including the fact that Dwarf, Spell, Magic Sword, or Wand can be used to detect traps considering that the work in question was written as a primer. And it obvious as one reads the rules found in the 3 LBBS and compare them to later edition, that Matt characterization of modern rules versus old school rules is accurate.


Here are all the mentions of traps in the OD&D 3 LBBs

Spoiler: 3 LBB mentions of traps

Description of Dwarves on Page 7 of Men & Magic

Spoiler: 3 LBB mentions of traps

3) they note slanting passages, traps, shifting walls and new construction in underground settings;

Description of Strength on Page 10 of Men & Magic
Strength is the prime requisite for fighters. Clerics can use strength on a 3 for 1 basis in their prime requisite area (wisdom), for purposes of gaining experience only. Strength will also aid in opening traps and so on.

The Find Trap spell on page 22 and 31
From Page 31
Find Traps: By means of this spell the Cleric will locate any mechanical or magical traps within a radius of 3”. The spell lasts 2 turns.

Wands from page 25 and 34 of Monsters & Treasure
Secret Doors and Traps Detection: When held the Wand will give warning of
either thing when it is brought within 2” of it.

Magical Swords on page 28 can have a Detect Traps ability.

Advice on setting up an underworld on Page 4 of The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures.
In beginning a dungeon it is advisable to construct at least three levels at once, noting where stairs, trap doors (and chimneys) and slanting passages come out on lower levels,

A description of a trap in room #4 of the sample underworld on page 5
No matter which way west players move they will end up turning into the lair of the monster “B,” let us suppose a basilisk. There is a false door in the second passage north. The tunnel to the east contains a trap, “C,” a slide to a lower level which is disguised as a set of up stairs.

Tricks and Traps on page 6
Tricks and Traps: Besides those already indicated on the sample level, there are a number of other easily added tricks and traps. The fear of “death,” its risk each time, is one of the most stimulating parts of the game. It therefore behooves the campaign referee to include as many mystifying and dangerous areas as is consistent with a reasonable chance for survival (remembering that the monster population already threatens this survival). For example, there is no question that a player’s character could easily be killed by falling into a pit thirty feet deep or into a shallow pit filled with poisoned spikes, and this is quite undesirable in most instances. Here are a few simple items which can be included:

A comment on pit traps while moving through the underworld on page 9
Traps are usually sprung by a roll of a 1 or a 2 when any character passes over or by them. Pits will open in the same manner.

The above is all the mention of traps in 3 LBB by using the search function on the PDFs I bought and compared to the originals I bought in the early 80s.

And because it raised as part of the discussion.

The mechanics on finding secret doors on page 8.
Secret passages will be located on the roll of a 1 or a 2 (on a six-sided die) by men, dwarves or halflings. Elves will be able to locate them on a roll of 1–4. At the referee’s option, Elves may be allowed the chance to sense any secret door they pass, a 1 or a 2 indicating that they become aware that something is there.

 

[Chris Brady]

Swords are cool...

 

[TristramEvans]

Well, we just had this announced.


Only €674.95.

Admittedly, I am probably buying this. I ran the original in high school, and it was awesome.

I want it , but $800 is a lot of moolah

 

[Grelan]

I suspect it's a Transplants reference, made less cool.

Ugh, yes that is significantly less cool. Wu-Tang is for the children, after all. I don't know who this is for.

 

[robertsconley]

Let's refocus on what I actually said: Finch makes the claim that new versions of D&D have rules that OD&D doesn't. Finch's claim is true. But what he ignores, as I've pointed out with numerous examples now, is that there are also a bunch of rules in OD&D that don't appear in new D&D.

After doing the work to verify your claims about what Matt Finch said then finding it wasn't supported, just taking your word that the above is the case is not going to cut it.

I am in the process of drafting my own set of rules based classic D&D mechanics and been working it for a number of years. I am familiar with all different classic editions and what they cover and don't cover. There are a short list of rules in the older editions that don't have a direct analogue in a later edition.

For example the use of Dexterity in Initiative in the Holmes edition.
That all weapons do 1d6 damage in the 3LBB.
The mix of what dice to roll for hit dice are sometimes unique to an edition.

You will need citations to prove your point.

Finch focuses only on the Rules in Both and the Rules Only in New D&D categories. He completely ignores all the stuff in the Rules Only in OD&D category. And this becomes even more problematic because, as I've demonstrated, his examples of rules found only in new D&D are frequently wrong (e.g., his claim that there are no mechanics for finding traps in OD&D).

I am finding that many of your claims about what Matt Finch say is not supported by the actual text of the Primer.

So, for example, Finch says (paraphrasing), "There are no rules for making a mechanical check to see if something is hidden in OD&D! This forces the GM to make rulings!" As we've seen, this claim is actually bullshit, but let's pretend that it was true. So what? It's equally true to say, "There are no rules for determining morale in new D&D! This forces the GM to make rulings!"

Page 273 5th edition DMG

MORALE
Some combatants might run away when a fight turns against them. You can use this optional rule to help determine when monsters and NPCs flee. A creature might flee under any of the following circumstances:

Bottom line: Not only are Finch's examples frequently wrong, the conclusions he draws from them are inaccurate because he's been absurdly selective in the example he's choosing.

I am not going to speculate why you are making arguments without doing the research but you need to start providing citations to support your points.

As for the primer, there are points that are glossed over like the fact OD&D 3 LBB has four sets of mechanics (Dwarf, a spell, a magic sword ability, a wand) that dealt with detecting traps. And despite Matt's notes, the tone of much of the writing is inflammatory to more than a few fans of new editions.

The primer is not without issues, but it is not bullshit as your are characterizing it. And your insistence that it is and the lack of accurate citations indicates that your bias goes deeper than just the primer itself.

You quote Finch explicitly stating that the 0e rules published in 1974 were specifically designed to be played using the methods described in the Primer, but you don't feel that Finch was implying or claiming that the game was played this way in the '70s? So you feel that Finch was literally claiming that Arneson & Gygax specifically designed the game to require a style of play that no one, including themselves, was actually doing?

C'mon, man.

I am not seeing how you get

You quote Finch explicitly stating that the 0e rules published in 1974 were specifically designed to be played using the methods described in the Primer,

from this.

Spoiler: The section I cited from the primer.

This booklet is an introduction to “old school” gaming, designed especially for anyone who started playing fantasy role-playing games after, say, the year 2000 – but it’s also for longer-time players who have slowly shifted over to modern styles of role-playing over the years.

If you want to try a one-shot session of 0e using the free Swords & Wizardry rules, just printing the rules and starting to play as you normally do will produce a completely pathetic gaming session – you’ll decide that 0e is just missing all kinds of important rules. (...)

Playing an old-style game is very different from modern games where rules cover many specific situations. The 0e rules don’t give you much specific guidance, and that’s not because they left out the answers to save space

Maybe another one of your diagrams breaking down the grammer would help illustrate your argument.

I don't find your argument that "OD&D's system for determining appropriate challenges for a given dungeon level says 6th level fighters can appear on the 1st level of the dungeon and D&D3's system for determining appropriate challenges for a given dungeon level only says that 3rd level fighters can appear on the 1st level of the dungeon, thus clearly demonstrating that OD&D has no system for determining appropriate challenges for a given dungeon level!" to be as compelling as you seem to think it is.

So a party of 1st level character taking on 6th level Myrmidons is an appropriate challenge? I would agree that OD&D has a system for generating challenges. I disagree that they are appropriate challenge in the sense that D&D 3.0 uses. Instead it seems to design to produce the situation that Matt describes.

And this got to be said, I think the party that made it made it to the 3rd level and encountering a 15 HD Purple Worm would disagree strongly that was an "appropriate" challenge while running for their lives.

 

[Baulderstone]

I want it , but $800 is a lot of moolah

Yeah, realistically, I'll probably just go with the two-book slipcase sets as they come out.

I know I groused about the recent revision of Masks of Nyarlathotep, but I am really excited about a new version of The Enemy Within. For one thing, they have Graeme Davis working on it, unlike the Masks revision, which didn't include anyone that worked on the original.

Secondly, TEW has huge flaws that need fixing. Up until Death on the Reik, it's classic, but that was the point where GW largely killed in-house development on RPGs to focus on 40K. For Power Behind the Throne, they abandoned the original plan for the campaign, instead converting a draft for an AD&D module that Carl Sargent had written, reskinning it to accompany the Middenheim city book. As it turns out, Power Behind the Throne was actually a solid installment for campaign.

Things didn't go as well with Something Rotten in Kislev. Ken Rolston was commissioned to write a Kislev campaign that had nothing to do with TEW. What he wrote is essentially Paranoia for WFRP. You play troubleshooters working for the Tsar, and are send on often missions with no way to win. If it has been released as originally intended, I think it would be a beloved WFRP book. Instead, it got modified to be part of TEW even though there is no real connection at all. On top of that, the humorously suicidal nature of the adventures isn't nearly as funny when it forces a TPK on a campaign that has been running for over a year.

Empire in Flames was a rush job before GW spun off Flame Publications, just wanting to get the final volume out the door. It is nothing but a linear fetch quest with lots of scenes where the PCs just watch NPCs doing things with the assumption the PCs will not intervene. I was still a relatively novice GM back then, but just reading this adventure left me certain that my players would absolutely hate it.

It will be exciting to see the back end of the campaign redone by one of the original authors, and a company that is actually interested in doing it will rather than just filling it out with unrelated manuscripts.

 

[robertsconley]

That they won't be able to cast because they can't use somatic components without a focus in hand or a free hand. The only wizard attack cantrips that don't require a free hand are lightning lure, green flame blade, sword burst, and booming blade.... all of which aren't from the core rule book.

I did some reading on this and use of a arcane focus is explicitly granted by a class feature.

Example: the sorcerer page 101
Spellcasting Focus
You can use an arcane focus (found in chapter 5) as a spellcasting focus for your sorcerer spells.

The fact that the Arcane Trickster and the Ranger also don't have this class feature indicates that this was a deliberate design choice.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I'm amazed at how often it feels like your opinion of 5e's designers is that they are infallible.

 

[Justin Alexander]

But as I will show further in the post. If the character is not a dwarf, doesn't have a particular spell, doesn't have a particular magic sword, doesn't have a particular wand then Matt assertion is correct.

Glad we agree that he's wrong about this.

Page 273 5th edition DMG

Yes. The 5th Edition DMG definitely existed in 2008 when Finch wrote the Primer.

I am not seeing how you get

You quote Finch explicitly stating that the 0e rules published in 1974 were specifically designed to be played using the methods described in the Primer,

from this.

Jesus, dude. Here's the text that was part of your original quotation (and which I quoted in the message you're replying to) which you deleted from your current response: "[The 0e rules don’t] give you much specific guidance, and that’s not because they left out the answers to save space."

You literally cut the text explicitly stating that the rules were specifically designed to be used in this way and then claimed you couldn't figure out where the text said that the rules were specifically designed to be used like this.

Given the rest of your recent posts I'm honestly having difficulty believing that this wasn't a deliberate act of intellectual dishonesty. As such, I'm afraid this discussion is over.

But before we go:

So a party of 1st level character taking on 6th level Myrmidons is an appropriate challenge? I would agree that OD&D has a system for generating challenges. I disagree that they are appropriate challenge in the sense that D&D 3.0 uses.

An encounter with a single 6th level fighter would have an EL of 5, 6, or 7 in 3.0 (DMG 3.0, p. 101). According to p. 102 of the DMG 3.0, 15% of encounters at 1st level should have an EL 1 to 4 levels higher than the party level and 5% should have an EL of 5+ the party level.

20% of appropriate encounters for a 1st level party, according to D&D 3.0, could include a 6th level fighter.

 

[robertsconley]

I'm amazed at how often it feels like your opinion of 5e's designers is that they are infallible.

I am pointing out that they are consistent that the omission wasn't an oversight. D&D 4th edition design was also consistent, well designed even. Didn't stop people including myself from disliking it as a D&D game.

 

[Edgewise]

I periodically see people rail at Finch's Primer for reasons that are entirely beside the point. The value of the Primer is not as some kind of historical document that describes the way everyone used to play, nor is it a manifesto stating that there's only One True Way. The value of the Primer is to show people a way to play that is not new but may be new to many readers at the time it was written. It still does a great job of distilling certain principals that you can incorporate into your game. Arguing against the Primer as though it was something else is just pointless pedantry if not outright strawmanning. The only conversation worth having about the Primer is whether or not its four principals constitute a valuable play style.

I also don't quite get people who perceive a snarky tone in the Primer - that's more subjective. I will admit that the examples are a little exaggerated to make a point, but the text itself is very clear about this.

 

[Necrozius]

As someone whose first d&d experience was 3e, I found the Primer to be an eye-opening read. I was just starting to understand this whole OSR phenomenon going on.

Every work can be flawed, especially in the eyes of individuals with more historical knowledge of the hobby. But for an ignorant layman (like myself at the time) it was a good shorthand primer.

Maybe the Primer is like Ewoks? I was the right age and experience group when I was exposed, so I didn’t mind it.

 

[AsenRG]

As someone whose first d&d experience was 3e, I found the Primer to be an eye-opening read. I was just starting to understand this whole OSR phenomenon going on.

Every work can be flawed, especially in the eyes of individuals with more historical knowledge of the hobby. But for an ignorant layman (like myself at the time) it was a good shorthand primer.

Maybe the Primer is like Ewoks? I was the right age and experience group when I was exposed, so I didn’t mind it.

Now I'm trying to picture a hairy PDF!

 

[Baulderstone]

The two guys behind the creation of the term seem to not be taking it too seriously. One of them btw is WizardThiefFighter aka. Luka Rejec who made UVG and Witchburner for Hydra Cooperative and is an artist/layout designer as well.

More clarity from Luka Rejec on the origins of the SWORD DREAM movement that has shaken the very foundations of the gaming community.

 

[Voros]

Which seems far too badass and cool for a bunch of Twitter nerds who are concerned that a "sword" is too aggressive and scary.

As noted earlier SWORD is purely a joke thrown out by a good designer/artist. People are taking it all way too seriously aka. the internet happened.

 

[Caesar Slaad]

Yeah I don’t think I disagreed with any of the advice and coming from younger designers there is less chauvinsim than usual when discussing the OSR.

Too often OSR talk reminds me of a guy who broke up with his girl (3e) but can’t stop talking about her and comparing her to his new lover (OSR) who ‘is way better.’

LOL. I wonder if this was inspired by my post of TBP long ago, or just a case of great minds thinking alike.

 

[CRKrueger]

More clarity from Luka Rejec on the origins of the SWORD DREAM movement that has shaken the very foundations of the gaming community.

Some more clarity would be him saying...
"This is a great summary of the ideas behind #SwordDream - right down to the fact. That I disagree with the backronym https://graverobbersguide.blogspot.com/2019/06/a-sword-dream.html … "

Even more clarity would be him endorsing the ideas of Saker Tarsos with regards to the "movement".


So...yeah, this guy had nothing to do with any non-gaming agenda behind the thing, it was just a joke that people are going crazy over.

 

[robertsconley]

None of the labels matters, the pieces are there for anybody to pick and use. If you find one fun to use, then use it otherwise don't. But what been done for the past decades rests on the availability of open content and the ease of distribution and production enabled by digital technology.

The result is a kaleidoscope not just of creative works but what people do with the material. This is threatening or confusing to some. Much of the drama in my opinion can be avoided by people realizing there is nothing to stop them from using the material in the manner they see fit. There has been and will still be those who desire control for whatever reason, but their efforts have been continually frustrated because of open content and digital technology.

 

[spittingimage]

people already seeing it is as both the salvation of gaming and an oppressive threat to their gaming freedoms. It's a topic ripe for pointless argument now.

I wish the RPG community could get it into its collective head that doing things differently to someone else is not a criticism of that person.

 

[spittingimage]

I 've been working for 10 years in a corporate setting where everyone gets really excited about making up and using contrived acronyms.

And now they're showing up in my off-work hobby.

I wanna puke

I think you need to drill down your core competency values and push back to the stakeholders vis-a-vis buy-in to the holistic paradigm. Okay? We'll lunch.

 

[spittingimage]

Fear not! I have started up a new movement that will obviate the need for both the "OSR" and the "SWORD DREAM." I think we can all come together and be the Independent DIY Inspirational Original Tabletop Innovation Community!

I'd be willing to use that. It lets people know from the outset that they shouldn't take it too seriously.

 

[Chris Brady]

I wish the RPG community could get it into its collective head that doing things differently to someone else is not a criticism of that person.

Would be nice, it also would be nice for people realize that playing the same game for 30+ years doesn't mean you suddenly have the right tell people how to play their Elf and Dwarf games.