Supplement V: Carcosa (split)
Valamir:
Actually Ron, James's answer was right on target for what I was looking for. Raven's might be too, although I saw that behavior more in the AD&D 2E crowd than in my OD&D days. But then back when I was playing OD&D I was too young to be cognizant of the larger scene.
greyorm:
Quote from: Valamir on January 09, 2009, 11:04:57 AM
Actually Ron, James's answer was right on target for what I was looking for. Raven's might be too, although I saw that behavior more in the AD&D 2E crowd than in my OD&D days. But then back when I was playing OD&D I was too young to be cognizant of the larger scene.
Hrm. It might be a matter of which decade/timeframe we each played OD&D in. Mine was the late 80's, early 90's, at which time 2nd Edition was coming out, and the tail end of 1st edition certainly had the attitude I mentioned (what with things like Unearthed Arcana and various Wilderness and Dungeon guides), though the early Dragon always had wild rule extensions (like the orgy article). I don't know what timeframe you and James might be viewing it from (and as you state, locale certainly had an affect).
James_Nostack:
Raven: regardless of whether these guys are right or wrong about what OD&D was "really" like in 1974, the real issue is that a particular group of dudes in 2008 have identified a particular mode of play, and Carcosa is a product of those design sensibilities. Based on about a year's study of these guys, I think Carcosa manages to be pretty representative of some of the best stuff they can do for those priorities.
If anything, I think the book is a little too randomization-happy, but it's designed in part to be a Rules Supplement in the tradition of Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry, Gods Demigods & Heroes, etc. So you've got a new method of rolling hit points (the LBB's didn't really make it clear how hit points were to be determined, and alternate hit-point methods are a meme in this crowd), a new magic system, a randomized monster-generator, and so forth.
greyorm:
That's a very sensible way to look at it.
BTW, I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to argue what D&D was "really" like in any given time period. I would consider that a stupid claim to argue about for a number of reasons, some of which have been touched on, and so I'm very sorry if it sounded like that was where I was coming from.
(I'm far more interested in taking a look at the various expressions of "what this thing was" among various disparate play-groups and how those interacted to form a perception of "the scene" during any given time period among any given group. I don't believe that's a good subject-direction for this particular thread, though.)
Ron Edwards:
James, I'd really, really like a quick list of links, with some minimal orienting information, to gain a better understanding of the New Old Skool (let's not make this a term). Sean (Calithema) is active there too, so maybe he can help. I have the first three issues of Fight On!, but the lack of discussion context and the aggravating tendency to use only usernames makes it hard to get into, besides appreciating the fun, which is easy.
I have also corresponded with Geof McKinney, the author of Carcosa, and maybe if we get a substantial topic going in this thread, he can join in.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page