Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Malmuria" data-source="post: 9542122" data-attributes="member: 7030755">I also started in the early 90s.&nbsp; But before I got to 2e, I started with the 1991 <a href="https://mythlands-erce.blogspot.com/2019/05/in-praise-of-black-box-d.html" target="_blank">&quot;black box&quot; basic set</a> and the rules cyclopedia.&nbsp; I recently revisited the black box and it teaches you how to play the game in ways that are strikingly resonant with the OSR.&nbsp; It gives players a dungeon crawl and tells the GM to adapt existing rules to cover unexpected situations, i.e. rulings over rules.&nbsp; I also dug up my old <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/16887/dmgr1-campaign-sourcebook-and-catacomb-guide-2e" target="_blank">2e Campaign Sourcebook and Catacombs Guide</a>, and the advice in there (from Jaquays) would also be at home in any OSR game.Your idea of &quot;Reject Modernity&quot; all comes down to your framing.&nbsp; If you define Adventure Path and Character-Build play as &quot;modernity,&quot; then anyone looking for something different is, I suppose, &quot;rejecting&quot; modernity.&nbsp; But that ascribes reactionary sensibilities (which, tbh, also have political undertones) to people who simply just want to experience different styles of gameplay.&nbsp; That includes people who started with 5e adventure paths but grew tired of the verbosity or the necessary dm fudging.&nbsp; But why does WOTC get to define what &quot;modernity&quot; is for everyone?&nbsp; Several of the most popular OSR rulesets are mechanically &quot;modern,&quot; using, for example, single universal resolution systems and 5e-isms like advantage/disadvantage.&nbsp; Meanwhile, there's a whole section of the hobby that would consider your version of &quot;story-driven play&quot; as actually quite outdated; are Blades in the Dark players &quot;rejecting modernity&quot; because they don't care for AP-style stories?The <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/between-two-cairns/id1645352624" target="_blank">Between Two Cairns</a> podcast reviews older TSR modules and regularly goes in on them for being poorly organized, non-sensical, and denying player choice.&nbsp; There is no uncritical &quot;embrace&quot; of &quot;tradition&quot; in those reviews.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Malmuria, post: 9542122, member: 7030755"] I also started in the early 90s. But before I got to 2e, I started with the 1991 [URL='https://mythlands-erce.blogspot.com/2019/05/in-praise-of-black-box-d.html']"black box" basic set[/URL] and the rules cyclopedia. I recently revisited the black box and it teaches you how to play the game in ways that are strikingly resonant with the OSR. It gives players a dungeon crawl and tells the GM to adapt existing rules to cover unexpected situations, i.e. rulings over rules. I also dug up my old [URL='https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/16887/dmgr1-campaign-sourcebook-and-catacomb-guide-2e']2e Campaign Sourcebook and Catacombs Guide[/URL], and the advice in there (from Jaquays) would also be at home in any OSR game. Your idea of "Reject Modernity" all comes down to your framing. If you define Adventure Path and Character-Build play as "modernity," then anyone looking for something different is, I suppose, "rejecting" modernity. But that ascribes reactionary sensibilities (which, tbh, also have political undertones) to people who simply just want to experience different styles of gameplay. That [I]includes[/I] people who started with 5e adventure paths but grew tired of the verbosity or the necessary dm fudging. But why does WOTC get to define what "modernity" is for everyone? Several of the most popular OSR rulesets are mechanically "modern," using, for example, single universal resolution systems and 5e-isms like advantage/disadvantage. Meanwhile, there's a whole section of the hobby that would consider your version of "story-driven play" as actually quite outdated; are Blades in the Dark players "rejecting modernity" because they don't care for AP-style stories? The [URL='https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/between-two-cairns/id1645352624']Between Two Cairns[/URL] podcast reviews older TSR modules and [I]regularly[/I] goes in on them for being poorly organized, non-sensical, and denying player choice. There is no uncritical "embrace" of "tradition" in those reviews. [/QUOTE]

Verification