Hogscape
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
It's not the years, it's the mileage.
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by Hogscape on Jul 31, 2009 8:44:10 GMT -5
Kylia, I hope we haven't given you the wrong impression but this entire Board, comprising in excess of 300 members and thousands of posts is a homage to Ken's work. That's an awful lot of people who are very passionate about the game. We wouldn't be here without Ken. We'd be playing a much lesser game or not role-playing at all.
;D
|
|
|
Post by Aramis of Erak on Jul 31, 2009 15:53:22 GMT -5
I suspect many of us would still be roleplaying, Hogscape. I know I would. And T&T is one of many great systems now. Other systems of equal simplicity and flexibility exist. There is, however, the nostalgia value, and the product history, that add value above and beyond the system itself.
Several other rules-light games exist with massive flexibility; two name but three: Mazes and Minotaurs, Barbarians of Lemuria, Broadsword. Neither has the massive baseline of products that T&T does, nor the street cred that 34 years in print provides.
|
|
|
Post by feldrik on Jul 31, 2009 16:25:08 GMT -5
I just orderd Barbarians of Lemuria (BoL). I love the part that requires characters to spend ALL of their loot to gain adventure points. A method that I would try to impliment in any fantasy RPG setting.
|
|
|
Post by ragnorakk on Jul 31, 2009 19:21:40 GMT -5
I've been eyeing Broadsword for a while now - looks cool.
|
|
|
Post by feldrik on Jul 31, 2009 22:22:29 GMT -5
I just read about Broadsword, it looks good too. I have noticed something, and I found myself doing this as well. Whenever I see something about a rules light RPG system it seems there is a tendancy to slip in an apology of sorts. A great 'beer and pretzels game' or 'for when you don't want to do a lot of thinking'. Phrases like that. Its as if liking a game with rules you can remember and that costs under $100 is something to be ashamed of! "Oh dear, you must be slow, when you want to learn how to play a real RPG then I will guide you through the latest Hasbro product with a popular name". I say enough is enough! I hereby have decided to promote T&T and other 'rules lite' RPGs as superior to those that have lots of crunchy rules, require many books and seem to be based on selling more product and less game. T&T is superior in every way to D&D. D&D is even inferior as a miniatures game in my never to be humble opinion!
|
|
unclecranky
5th Level Troll
(mutter...grumble)
Posts: 657
|
Post by unclecranky on Aug 1, 2009 0:51:40 GMT -5
Okay, a brief note from a crippled old role-player, regarding 'clerics' and such. Bah. Humbug. Creating cleric types requires creating religions to support the clerics, complete with a deity or deities for them to worship and fawn on about. Boo, hiss. T&T didn't have such things creeping around the game-world except as scum to be flattened when it began, and it doesn't need them now. Now on to the discussion proper: Gygax and Arneson began to do something fun, based on a wargaming background, and while it was groundbreaking at the time it happened, it quickly grew into a huge, corporate, money-grubbing boondoggle that spread to two games (D&D and AD&D were in fact, separate games for years, remember) with such a collection of rules that a genius-or a computer- were, in fact, required to keep track of them all. St. Andre came along, took a read of the original rules, and decided he could do it better, or at least more simply and inexpensively. In exchange, the player was expected to do something most D&D players almost never really do - use their imagination. I'm mean, I know. I'm offending some people here. Poor over-ruled D&D players. I shed no tears for them. I show them a cheaper, simpler, quicker game, with easier equipment, and if they don't take the hint, too bad. For them. I have heard over the years, from more than one source, that The Great Original Dungeon Master was paralyzed into whimpering inaction when he couldn't find a rule to fit each situation. I never have been. I created my game world whole-cloth using the rules St. Andre wrote down as guidelines, and have had many players come back to play in my world when our paths, having diverged due to lifes vagaries, recombined. In my opinion, creating rules that allowed a high-school graduate to do that, was an act of sheer genius. I don't think 'serendipity' played more than a passing role in that. I will thank and praise my fellow Trollhallans for getting the old Trollgod off his backside and creating again. Don't get me wrong. I don't speak from ignorance. I played the original D&D game a few times, AD&D 1st and 2nd editions for a few years each, and wasted, in my opinion, a hell of a lot of money on stuff to role-play what I'd been doing better on my own for years before I ran across the junk in my local hobby shop.
|
|
quoghmyre
7th Level Troll
The Summer Troll
Posts: 1,048
|
Post by quoghmyre on Aug 1, 2009 1:03:06 GMT -5
Hazzah, unclecranky, I Exalt thee...
|
|
Hogscape
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
It's not the years, it's the mileage.
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by Hogscape on Aug 1, 2009 1:10:04 GMT -5
I just orderd Barbarians of Lemuria (BoL). I love the part that requires characters to spend ALL of their loot to gain adventure points. A method that I would try to impliment in any fantasy RPG setting. Cool - I wrote the Sorcery system for that game so please let me know what you think! ;D
|
|
unclecranky
5th Level Troll
(mutter...grumble)
Posts: 657
|
Post by unclecranky on Aug 1, 2009 2:28:52 GMT -5
And I always have exalted thee, Quoghmyre.
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Aug 1, 2009 6:08:22 GMT -5
I ordered BoL a few days back and I look forward to it with bated breath. Broadsword is, indeed, super S&S cool. Now my only problem is...do I get the Legends of Steel Broadsword edition...or wait and get the BoL edition with the BoL rules integrated? See? These are the kinds of problems you want to have. ;D unclecranky, -lol- First of all, I agree with your main argument regarding clerics as well as the issue of rules-glut in general (and as also stated by feldrik). I know you and I have been back and forth on this, but I still fail to see how either Original D&D, nor Holmes Basic and/or Moldvay Basic and Cook/Marsh Expert are rules-heavy in the slightest. If someone as dim as I could parse Moldvay/Cook D&D when I was young, anyone could. Original, and by extension, Holmes are even more rules-lite. Heck, Original D&D is honestly not any heavier than T&T. Now, the expanded Basic game as edited by Frank Mentzer (Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, Immortals,...compiled in the Rules Cyclopedia) as well as any iteration of Advanced...yeah. I'll certainly agree with that. There was way, way too much there than I would ever want or need. And there's just too much to go through in general (for me). I've never, ever heard of Gary having a problem with adjucating on the fly. In fact, that's precisely the way he gamed. According to folks who sat at his table in both the 70's and just a few years back, he rarely opened the books or anything at all. I mean, heck, he himself stated many times in original and even in Advanced, that if you're stuck, jus' make something up. I'm sure that's something T&T fans can dig. Most folks who play these versions of D&D...they are very into DIY. Very. That's why there's such a huge and very creative and active community for the older flavors and for their retro-clones. There are new adventures being published. New takes on the old rules (such as Ruins & Ronin, an oriental flavor of OD&D via Swords & Wizardry). New magazines, in Fight On! (whose creator would welcome T&T stuff with open arms if anyone submits some) and Knockspell. Now, if you're speaking of these folks playing the recent editions of D&D, then yes, they do seem, from my personal perspective to be very shackled by the rules and most of the time without even realizing it. They seem to think that having a longer list of options really means more options. Pity. It certainly would seem serendipity had less of an impact, though it was there in some form or another. Though, it likely would have manifested in another way. That is to say, had Ken not known Mike Stackpole or Liz Danforth or gotten input from others like "Bear" Peters and the like the game may not have really worked and may not have survived much past birth, but as I said, it may have manifested in another similar way. It may very well have been another group of folks who would have made similar suggestions and contributions as did that classic group.
|
|
|
Post by feldrik on Aug 1, 2009 8:34:39 GMT -5
I agree with unclecrankey...I think I am crankey jr. sometimes. I did work up some priest stuff using an idea Aramis presented in another thread. The mechanic was simple but then the whole 'game morality' reared its ugly head.
[quoteCool - I wrote the Sorcery system for that game so please let me know what you think! ][/quote] Hogscape is made of awsome...I read the free version and it looks very good. I am inspired to work on my Even Odds system more, my game group seems to like it so far. It has pulled me away from T&T but it is gaming. I exalt you both!
|
|
unclecranky
5th Level Troll
(mutter...grumble)
Posts: 657
|
Post by unclecranky on Aug 1, 2009 15:03:52 GMT -5
First, Mach, let me exalt you for keeping me in my place regarding the Moldvay/Original rules, as well as the 'Holmes' version, because you are right. I remember my experiences at the hands of those old-time Dungeon Masters who introduced me to the game at first as abusive (which, from the the objective viewpoint of other players watching their interactions with ME, it was). Reading the original rules only after playing for several sessions where I was told "do what we tell you", and losing several dozen characters in the process, I understood them (the rules) easily enough. I also understood how the early Dungeon Masters of D&D were getting the idea that they were entitled to act this way - it states in the rulebooks you specified, that the Dungeon Master was the ultimate authority in the running of his/her game. That they took it too far, goes without saying, but then, you should know, we are talking about teenagers here-and teenagers are famous for taking EVERYTHING too far. My original point stands. AD&D 1st and 2nd editions, and the latest thing from the publisher, is too complicated and toe-the-line for my taste. I won't play them any longer. And I count on you, my friend, to tell me when I'm wrong. That's why I consider you a friend.
|
|
|
Post by Aramis of Erak on Aug 1, 2009 16:46:30 GMT -5
Out of the box, Moldvay Basic isn't bad. But it was never intended to be a stand alone; T&T covers more ground in the same page range. However, once you add Expert, it trebles in complexity, by doubling the rulebase and focusing on about 4x the situations. It crosses above T&T complexity. Complexity isn't about rules length, either. B/X combined is more complex, by design, than B alone. But, to be honest, there are equally complex games in shorter rules. (TFT as Melee+Wizard+ITL is about 110 pages, and a good bit more complex, even as it used an easier mechanic... the various subsystems interacted move complexly because there were more of them. TFT as AW+AM+ITL is 152pp, and far more complex a game than BXCM integrated, which totals out some 400 pages.) | T&T | Red Basic D&D | OE D&D Box | 1: | character gen | Character Generation | Character Generation | 2: | Equipment limitations | Equipment limitations | Equipment limitations | | 3: | Combat Rolls | Combat System | Combat System | 4: | Magic System | Spells | Spells | 5: | Saving Rolls | Thief Skills | Strongholds | 6: | advancement | advancement | Advancement | 7: | MR system | Monsters | Monsters | 8: | | Morale | Morale | 9: | | Saving Throws | Saving Throws | 10: | | Alignment | Alignment | 11: | | | Folowers/hirelings |
Now, CGen comparisons: | T&T | Red Basic D&D | 1: | Roll Stats | Roll Stats | 2: | Pick and apply Kindred | Pick Class | 3: | Pick Type | Roll HD | 4: | Figure Melee Adds/missile adds | Pick spells | 5: | Pick spells | figure combat modifiers | 6: | pick talent/skills | Look up thief abilities | 7: | | Look up Turning abilities |
Most D&D classes get to skip #4 or #6; 3 (M, E, C) of the 7 do #4, and 2 of the 7 (T, H) do #6. Only one does step 7. It differs from OE D&D in that it is missing race; race got subsumed into class (F,M,C,T,Dw,E,Ha), and OE was 3 classes (F,M,C), expanded to 5 in 1 expansion (+ T,Dr), then 8 in a second (+ A,R,P). T&T #6 is 2 of three (6 of 11 in 7.x), and #6 is only in 5.5 and 7.0; 7 is simpler. But figuring D&D combat data is all table lookups. Easily memorized for the modifiers, but the TH line is a lookup for most people. Every class has different hit dice. Again, a table is a bit more complex than a formulae, so D&D is a bit more complex there. In OE, the table isn't even a smooth progression... it has funky gaps. And stats only provided XP and HP bonuses until Sup 1... Red Basic was a simplification from OE. and a needed one at that, for new players. It managed the complexity by clear presentation, and by good examples, and removing a step in CGen, and making the tables more rational. It still was more convoluted than T&T... for which the 'basic set equivalent' is the short version in 4 pages in the freebies (or 10 digest sized in the Corgi Solos). I wouldn't say OE was rules-heavy, but it certainly isn't "Rules-light". Medium-light, maybe. Even T&T isn't Light... but medium-light, tho' right close to the border with light. BoL looks light. Broadsword is light. Og Unearthed Edition is rules Light. Brute Squad is light. Toon i rules-light. Mazes and Minotaurs without expansions is about as heavy as I'll give a light to... and it's lighter than T&T. (It gets much crunchier with the expansions, but never exits medium-light for medium, but BXCMI does with C and M rules.) Something loses the rules-light designation from me the moment I "NEED" a rulebook to look up tabular data and/or run the game. If I am not using spellcasters, or only rogues with a couple spells, I don't need the book in play. But the equipment allowance system of T&T, while elegant, is a convoluted bit of table-needed wonkiness. It also is a good bit of the feel of T&T.
|
|
quoghmyre
7th Level Troll
The Summer Troll
Posts: 1,048
|
Post by quoghmyre on Aug 1, 2009 20:30:19 GMT -5
as Ken said
and very active on Twitter ;D
|
|
|
Post by ragnorakk on Aug 1, 2009 21:27:06 GMT -5
Wow! What's the address of that site? Sounds good! I know she's on Facebook (we're friends there ...ugh...facebook...) It seems to me that the differences in complexity between T&T and the early D&Ds are pretty slight, not much of an issue. The differences between them that had the biggest impact on me (that made T&T more attractive) were: 1. no alignment/religion/deity stuff written into the game 2. T&T's saving roll system 3. Ken's authorial voice (it's a fun read!) I mean all in all I think that T&T is simpler, yes. feldrik - go get 'em! see if they can survive a TTYF first though!
|
|