What roleplaying games are you playing now? What games do you want to play?

I've been writing this blog for almost seventeen years now. Yet I've rarely addressed any questions to you, the human beings who look at these posts from time to time. But I'm curious about who actually visits this place (aside from the bots). I'm interested to know what game(s) you play. 

As I explained in my previous post, the roleplaying games that I've been playing have shifted over the past two decades. Early on, I was focused primarily on "Old School Renaissance" games like Swords and Wizardry (and developed some house rules for it, many of which were later integrated into Crypts & Things, which I also played back in the day) and 1st edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons/OSRIC. I also occasionally ran Call of Cthulhu. 

Then, in spring 2011, I started playing in a "Young Kingdoms campaign" that used the Runequest II (MRQII) rules. (How could I refuse? The Gamemaster was one of the co-authors of the system!) This started a long period -- continuing to this day with Lyonesse -- of playing versions of the game that is now called Mythras (MRQII and Runequest 6 were the immediate ancestors of Mythras -- all written by Lawrence Whitaker and Pete Nash). I also continued to run Call of Cthulhu from time to time (winding up a sporadic campaign in 2017). And in 2017-2018 I ran an Adventures in Middle-earth campaign.

For a few years I ran a campaign using Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition in the "Gygax version" of the World of Greyhawk. (I eventually switched to the 5e-based Into the Unknown system, but ItU is close enough to 5e that I regard the whole campaign as my "5e" one.) I wanted to properly "try out" the current version of D&D and we ended up continuing until the characters reached 6th level. While that campaign was fun, I realized by the end of it that I had no desire to ever run 5e D&D again, at least for an extended period of time (I did run a couple of sessions of 5e for some kids last fall -- one of my few "charitable acts" as a RPGer).

Over the past few years, as GM, I've primarily run Against the Darkmaster. One campaign, set in Middle-earth, wrapped up a few months ago (although I have a "epilogue" set of adventures planned for the same characters sometime in the future). The other, set in my homebrew world of "Ukrasia," is still going strong. 

So these days, I mainly GM Against the Darkmaster and I mainly play Mythras (I'm leaving out various "one shots" of different systems here). I would like to try out Dragonbane sometime, as it strikes me as similar to Mythras in many ways but is much "lighter" in terms of both rules and tone (the similarity shouldn't be that surprising, since both games are descendants of the "Basic Roleplaying" system created by Chaosium almost five decades ago). 

What about you? What games do you play these days, either as GM or player? What game(s) do you want to play?

There and Back Again: My Circular Role-playing Journey

I’ve talked about my personal history with the ‘Old School Renaissance’ or ‘Old School Revival’ (OSR) in the past at this blog (e.g., see this post from 2022). But some reflection on the games that I’ve been playing in recent years has prompted me to scribble some further thoughts. (My apologies for being a bit self-indulgent here …)

[Saruman by Angus McBride]

It’s been an interesting journey. I was ‘floating around’ at various role-playing games fora during the early days of the OSR over two decades ago. Disappointment with 3rd edition Dungeons & Dragons – and nostalgia for my early days of gaming – led me to dig out (and in some cases repurchase) my old Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Basic/Expert Dungeons & Dragons, Rules Cyclopaedia D&D, and other out-of-print RPG books. I was excited – and later disappointed – by Castles & Crusades in its early days. (I wrote positive reviews at RPG.net of both the C&C box set and Players’ Handbook, but eventually came to find the atrocious editing by Troll Lord Games intolerable.)  

I started this blog in 2009 in order to post some rules ideas for Swords & Wizardry (S&W). Some of my ‘swords and sorcery’ house rules for S&W appeared in early issues of Fight On! and Knockspell. Eventually, many of those rules were incorporated into Crypts and Things. So I guess that I contributed – albeit in a small way – to the creation of OSR “stuff,” at least early on. 

But I haven’t really been that engaged with the OSR for about a decade now. I still follow it to some extent. I mean, I have Dolmenwood and Shadowdark, as well as the more recent versions of S&W, and a few other things. I’ve backed the forthcoming ‘3rd edition’ of OSRIC (the original “retro-clone,” in this case of 1980 AD&D). While I regret some of my purchases, overall I find that there are still interesting things being produced. But I don’t really use any OSR (by which I mean here ‘TSR D&D-derived’) systems anymore, and haven’t for years. They just don’t appeal to me that much these days. I think that, given my tastes, there are superior alternatives available. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by this. I sort of thought the same thing about AD&D/D&D around 1985.

Almost all my gaming these days involve either Mythras or Against the Darkmaster (but sometimes my groups will play ‘one shots’ of other things, e.g., Mothership or Delta Green, and I’d like to run some Dragonbane someday). I find these systems more satisfying overall than any version of D&D (TSR, OSR, 3e, 5e, whatever). I guess I’m not a ‘rules lite’ person after all. In retrospect, I think that I thought that about myself only because I found running 3e D&D to be such a tedious chore. 

Of course, both Mythras and Against the Darkmaster are descendants of other ‘old school’ systems: Chaosium’s Basic Roleplaying (Runequest, Stormbringer, and the like) in the case of Mythras, and Iron Crown Enterprise’s Middle-earth Roleplaying (itself a simplified version of 2nd edition Rolemaster), in the case of Against the Darkmaster. So, I guess they're kind of ‘OSR’ systems as well (but not if we adhere to the “OSR = derived from TSR AD&D/D&D” definition). 

I can’t help but be struck by the extent to which my personal gaming history has repeated itself: dissatisfaction with AD&D/D&D led me to move to Middle-earth Roleplaying (MERP) and Basic Roleplaying (BRP), including Call of Cthulhu, Hawkmoon, and Stormbringer, in the mid-late 1980s. And about three decades later the same thing happened with OSR D&D and 5e D&D. Hopefully I've learned my lesson and won’t go through this cycle again.

As an aside, one thing that makes me think of the old MERP campaign modules as "old school" in nature is that – whatever their other faults – they were effectively “sandboxes” (as I explain here). They described a number of locations, some in detail, and provided advice for GMs on how to provide "hooks" for players. There were a few “adventure modules” for MERP – books with 3 adventures (usually aimed at levels, 1, 3, and 5) – but even those were pretty loose for the most part (generally they provided a setting and a situation), not “railroad” adventures. So, after my first several years with AD&D, a lot of my GMing involved using and running Middle-earth “sandbox” campaigns, although of course that term was not used in those days (at least to my knowledge). Indeed, I vividly recall comparing my MERP modules to TSR's Dragonlance series around 1986 or 1987, and noting how little room for improvisation or player freedom the latter allowed.

Anyhow, to the extent I was still involved in the hobby during the 1990s, the games I followed were those that came out earlier, especially MERP and Stormbringer (the latter revised and renamed Elric! during that decade). I remember visiting gaming stores in the 1990s and being a bit baffled and even put off by all the “goth” stuff. I never got into Vampire and the like (just as I never got into the Magic craze.) When D&D 3e came out, I was excited by it because it seemed to “improve” D&D by including certain things from other systems that I liked (e.g., skills). In play, though, I came to loathe the system after two year-long campaigns, and so was primed for the OSR when it happened.

Of course, had I been sensible, I would’ve just kept playing MERP, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer, and similar older games – and just ignored the hype around 3e D&D and the “d20” universe in the early 2000s. These days, for the most part, I’m happy to stick with my “d100” games, Mythras and Against the Darkmaster. Wisdom, I hope, comes with age.

OSRIC the Third

The wise sages at Mythmere Games are hard at work on the third version of OSRIC (“Old School Reference and Index Compilation”). You can support this project at Backerkit.

OSRIC is a restatement of the first edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons rules as they existed prior to the publication of Unearthed Arcana (with some minor modifications to ensure its legal “safety” at the time). It was the first true “retro clone” – version 1.0 came out in 2006 – and helped turbocharge the “Old School Renaissance” in its early days. While other “old school” games preceded it (e.g., Castles & Crusades, Basic Fantasy RPG, Hackmaster), OSRIC was the first to aim simply to restate an earlier, no longer supported, set of rules, rather than capture its “ethos” or “feel” with a somewhat different (more “modern”) system.   

While continuously available for free (in PDF) for almost two decades now, OSRIC eventually was eclipsed by other retro clones (including Mythmere Games’ own Swords & Wizardry, which restates the pre-AD&D version of the game). 

Hopefully with new art and a more reader-friendly presentation, though, OSRIC will enjoy its own renaissance and find a new audience.

Certainly, when I contemplate running an old school TSR-era version of D&D again, I tend to think of “Gygaxian” AD&D (using Gygax’s version of the World of Greyhawk) more than anything else. And I prefer the pre-UA version of the game overall (in part because I don’t have much nostalgia for the post-UA version, as I had drifted away from AD&D shortly after it was published).

The new version promises to be great. Hopefully half-elves will be able to be druids in this version (as they were in AD&D – their true, unique niche). And while I’m disappointed that there will be no bard class, I’m looking forward to adding OSRIC 3.0 to my library. I’m “all in”!

Emirikol would approve! 

Fight On! Issue 16 now available – dedicated to DA Trampier

One of the best things to happen in the “old school” gaming community in the past year is the return of the amazing fanzine Fight On! 

Issue 16 has just dropped and it’s dedicated to my favourite FRPG artist of all time: David A. Trampier.

Fight On! has a new website

FYI: The original Old School Renaissance fanzine Fight On! has a new website.

Sale on issues 1-14 of Fight On!

As recently announced here, the Old School Renaissance fanzine Fight On! has returned to publication after a long sabbatical.

If you are missing PDF versions of the first run, issues 1-14, they currently are available in a bundle at Drivethru RPG for 50 percent off (34.99 USD). The sale will run until this Saturday (12 October 2024).

It’s great to have Fight On! back with us … and fighting on! 

Combat should be interesting

Combat obviously is an important element in most fantasy role-playing games. At its best, it’s exciting and dramatic. After all, the protagonists’ lives are at risk! And surprising things can happen – either because of chance (the rolls of the dice) or because of players’ inventiveness (or even inspiration on the part of the Game Master in the midst of a session). 

In the two campaigns that I currently am running – both using the Against the Darkmaster (VsD) system, one set in Middle-earth, the other in my home setting of Ukrasia – I rarely have more than one combat in any given session. Thanks to its “critical hits” system, combat in VsD can easily become quite deadly or debilitating, so players tend to avoid it when possible. Hence, two or more sessions (if not more) typically will pass between combats. I like this kind of pacing, as it ensures that when combat does take place, it is noteworthy and memorable.  

The two games that I play the most these days – VsD and Mythras – both have involved and colourful combat systems. While VsD has vivid critical hits, fumbles, and the like, Mythras has hit locations and exciting “special effects” (previously called “combat manoeuvres”) that allow for a wide range of tactical options, including defensive ones. They definitely are not “rules light” systems! 

Almost two decades ago (!), when I finally realized that I disliked 3rd edition Dungeons and Dragons, I thought that that was because I disliked “rules heavy” FRPGs. But that wasn’t really the case. I’ve always liked certain “rules heavy” – or at least “rules medium” – systems, like Middle-earth Roleplaying and Stormbringer. What I disliked was how tedious the rules for 3e D&D were – both in terms of prep work and its combat system. Running and playing 3e D&D involved a lot of work – and there was very little pay-off for that, as combats in 3e were frequent but usually quite boring. For the most part, characters and their opponents were “blocks of hit points” that would be chipped away during combats that involved a lot of rather flavourless options (and ubiquitous, bland “attacks of opportunity”). 

The problem isn’t nearly as bad in 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons. But it’s still there: the game assumes that combat is common (which the DM can ignore, of course) and that it rarely threatens the lives of the characters (thanks to all their abilities, inflated hit points, “death saves,” and the like). (Yes, there are options to make the game more “gritty” and deadly hidden in the Dungeon Master's Guide, but the default mode is very much “fantasy superheroes,” wherein player characters rarely face serious risks.) Combat in 5e D&D is pretty dull in my experience – at least when compared to the alternatives with which I am familiar, such as Mythras and VsD.

So what my recent 5e D&D campaign taught me was that what I dislike are “rules heavy” or “rules medium” systems in which combat is insipid and (usually) not that risky (at least to the characters). I had to work hard to ensure that at least some of the combats in my campaign were novel. In contrast, no such work is needed for Mythras or VsD, given the intrinsic qualities of those combat systems. Even an encounter with some “vanilla” bandits or orcs can be risky and interesting.

That said, sometimes one doesn’t want to engage in a lot of book-keeping when running a game. That’s certainly fine. This is where older (TSR era) editions of D&D and AD&D shine (at least when one isn’t using all the rules outlined by Gary Gyax in the AD&D rules – which almost no one ever did or does). In old school D&D (and associated “retro-clones” like Swords and Wizardry, OSRIC, and Crypts & Things), combat is fast. So while it lacks the colourfulness and tactical depth of other systems, at least it rarely takes more than 20 minutes to resolve (unlike even trivial combats in 3e or 5e D&D). And of course, combat can be more deadly in older versions of D&D, given the lower hit points of characters, the absence of “death saves,” the relative rarity of healing spells, etc.

In short, my view is that combat should be either interesting or fast. One of my gripes with 5th edition D&D is that combat typically is neither (although sometimes it can be), at least in comparison to the other FRPGs that I play.  

OSRIC Player's Guide

There is a new Player’s Handbook -- er, Player's Guide -- for OSRIC (the “retro-clone” for first edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons) available. The PDF is available for free here; paper versions are available on Amazon (Canada/US). 

OSRIC, of course, was the original retro-clone. Along with Basic Fantasy (which appeared around the same time), OSRIC helped to launch the “Old School Renaissance” almost two decades ago. 

The original OSRIC was not a proper ruleset; rather, it simply included the necessary information (tables and the like) to permit the publication of material (primarily modules) for 1e AD&D. Shortly after it originally appeared, however, OSRIC was fleshed out into a complete game. Since then, though, it has not been substantially updated. 

But there are now plans to revise it so that it (a) includes more material from the original Dungeon Master’s Guide (in particular, I think, material having to do with campaign-building and running) and (b) more closely resembles the 1st edition AD&D rules. (Since it was the original attempt at a retro-clone, OSRIC was cautious in replicating the original ruleset. Subsequent retro-clones, like Old School Essentials, have demonstrated that near complete fidelity to the originals is unproblematic. So hopefully half-elves will not be so horrible in the revised version of OSRIC.) 

I believe that there will be a kickstarter for the revised edition of OSRIC sometime next autumn. In the meantime, it’s great that there now is a very attractive player's book available. 

Recommended: Swords and Wizardry Complete – Revised Edition

The kickstarter for the revised version of the Swords & Wizardry Complete rules was a great success. Backers (like myself) now have PDFs of the new core rulebook. I’ve looked it over and am very favourably impressed. The organization and layout have been improved from earlier versions. Information is presented in a direct, economical, but nonetheless aesthetically pleasing way. Kudos to Suzy Moseby on doing such a fine job on the layout. The art is solid, with a few very good pieces, and nothing objectionably unappealing. I like all three covers (the Erol Otus one [depicted below], as well as the green and blue designs by Del Teigeler). (But I do miss the original wonderful S&W cover by Pete Mullen.)

It's amazing to me how much content Matt Finch has managed to pack into such a slim package (144 pages) in a clear and accessible way. Roughly speaking, Swords & Wizardry Complete, gives you pretty much everything in the original D&D 1974 box set, and a lot (but not all) from the subsequent supplements (Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and Eldritch Wizardry). What you end up with is something very close to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (as realized in 1979), but somewhat simpler and lower-powered. The main (or at least most noticeable) differences: in S&W there are no half-orcs, gnomes, illusionists, or bards; alignment is three-fold (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic); hit dice are lower (e.g., fighters have d8 in S&W instead of d10 as in AD&D); and slightly lower level-limits for demi-human characters. Aside from these changes – which, of course, are easy to modify if one wishes – S&W provides a “simplified” version of AD&D, and is readily compatible with most material produced for D&D and AD&D prior to 3^rd edition.

 

There are some minor but helpful innovations in S&W that distinguish it from "0 edition" D&D. Among them: the ‘ascending’ scale for AC is used (which I appreciate and find preferable to the older system, although the old ‘descending’ system is provided as an option as well); a single unified ‘saving throw’ is provided for each class (but with the option to use the older system, broken down into categories like “death rays and poison”); four different options for determining initiative are outlined; rules for morale are provided; and rules for two-weapon fighting are included. These are all helpful additions to the game in my view.   

 

Since it is a “clone” of early (0e) D&D, S&W includes elements from that system that personally I am not that keen on. For instance, the special abilities of thieves (as well as assassins and monks) are quite miserable, with very low chances for success at anything until characters achieve higher (7+) levels. If I were to run S&W again, I’d probably just use my version of the class instead. Likewise, I’ve never been a fan of the way earlier editions of D&D and AD&D implemented “level limits” on non-human characters. I think that there are better ways to “balance” non-human characters against human ones. (S&W does include an optional rule to permit non-human characters to advance beyond their level limits, but with a 50% penalty to experience points earned by those characters. I’d likely either use that option, or simply grant some additional bonus to human characters instead.) Of course, one cannot really fault a retro-clone like S&W for “cloning” such rules from earlier editions, and in any case such things are easy to house-rule.  

 

In short, this revised, updated version of Swords & Wizardry is excellent, the best version yet. It was the “retro-clone” that helped inspire this blog in 2009 – and for which I wrote a number of house-rules – and it remains my favourite. I highly recommend it to anyone who enjoys the spirit of old school Dungeons and Dragons!

 

(For a more comprehensive review, check out this one at the blog “It’s Okay; Gary Sent Us.”)

OGL Apocalypse: WotC goes full Chaotic Evil

By now I assume that most people who visit this blog are aware of the raging storm over the changes that the Wizards of the Coast (part of Hasbro) are seeking to make to the Open Game License (OGL).

 

The current OGL (v. 1.0a) has been around for over two decades now and has facilitated a number of important developments in the role-playing hobby. In addition to all the material produced for Dungeons & Dragons by third-party publishers (mainly for 3e, 3.5e, and 5e), it enabled the creation of a number of role-playing games that draw upon some of the core mechanics of D&D (e.g., Mutants and Masterminds). The Old School Renaissance (OSR) probably would not have happened (at least not in the way that it did) without the OGL. The original retro-clone, OSRIC, restated the 1e AD&D rules, using the OGL for cover. (It was a brilliant insight on the part of Matt Finch, aka “Mythmere,” that this was possible.) Likewise, the first edition of Pathfinder used the OGL to repackage (with some tweaks) the 3.5 edition D&D rules in order to cater to gamers dissatisfied with 4^th edition. No doubt WotC was not happy about that! But ultimately it pressured WotC to rethink 4e D&D (as did, I think, the OSR to some extent) and produce a far superior product, 5e D&D.

 

Anyhow, it looks like WotC aims to try to revoke OGL 1.0a and replace it with a new one (v. 1.1) with rather draconian conditions. For a helpful (and brief) overview, see this Inverse article, or this Forbes (!) one, or this Ars Technica one.

 

As a side note, legally speaking (but keep in mind that I am not a lawyer) the OGL was never actually necessary and in fact imposes conditions stricter than those imposed by standard US copyright law (let alone the laws of other countries, which tend to be more generous with “fair use” than the US). The reason for this is that game rules cannot be copyrighted. So a product that dryly restated the rules of AD&D, for instance, would be perfectly legal. However, artistic and literary expression can be copyrighted. Given the literary nature of role-playing games, a lot of the specific descriptions of classes, spells, monsters, settings, and so forth can (arguably) be legitimately copyrighted (but not their underlying mechanics). So one would have to tread carefully in restating a set of rules. And of course, even if one has the legal right to do something (e.g., indicate compatibility with another company’s game), one nonetheless may be subject to legal harassment or bullying by a company with deep pockets. One thing that the OGL did was remove any uncertainty about potential legal harassment or worries about whether some element of the game was copyright-protected or not. (For an excellent overview of this matter, see this Electronic Frontier Foundation article.)

 

A lot of RPG publishers are now abandoning the OGL. Even if WotC backs down and allows OGL 1.0a to continue (or modifies 1.1 so that it is far less restrictive) many gaming companies are sensibly deciding that they do not want to be vulnerable to future Hasbro corporate whims. (And it very well may be the case that WotC does not back down and pushes on with OGL 1.1.)

 

As a player, most of my time has been spent using Mythras over the past twelve years, with occasional forays into other systems (e.g., The One Ring, Trail of Cthulhu, Delta Green, etc.), none of which have been dependent on the OGL. Among other things, I’ve been a sorcerer in a Young Kingdoms campaign (which used Mythras’s predecessor, Mongoose’s RuneQuest II), a Roman mystic in a Mythic Britain campaign, an aristocratic messenger in a Mythic Babylon campaign, and a paleontologist in a Return to the Mountains of Madness campaign.

 

But as a creator and gamemaster, I’ve been heavily involved with Dungeons & Dragons and related systems. Years ago, I got into the OSR in a big way and developed a set of house rules for modifying Swords and Wizardry (the 0e retro-clone) to give it more of a “swords and sorcery” flavour. Many of those rules appeared in articles in Knockspell and Fight On! All of those rules remain available at this blog (and were never offered here under the OGL). Many of those rules were incorporated into D101’s Crypts and Things game (which does use the OGL). (I hope that C&T rides out this storm and continues to be available. It’s a great system!)

 

Also, despite some problems here and there, overall, I like 5e D&D. It’s not perfect – it still has too many fiddly (“exception-based’) rules for my taste – but it’s the first “official” version of D&D since the TSR era that I’ve been happy to run. (Making feats optional was huge improvement over 3e.) I’ve been using it for my current Greyhawk campaign. And I thought that the 5e-derived Adventures in Middle-earth game was quite good. The Mirkwood campaign that I ran using AiME a few years ago remains one of my all-time favourites.

 

But this latest action by WotC has left a foul taste in my mouth. I already was put off by the movement toward “D&D One” (or is it “One D&D”?), which struck me as undermining some of the strengths of 5e D&D – among other things, by “hardwiring” certain elements that I prefer to keep optional, e.g., feats and inspiration, into the core game. Changing the OGL and wreaking havoc with 3^rd party publishers is just plain malevolent.

 

So … I’ve had it with WotC. I won’t be buying anything from them for the foreseeable future. (Not that I was buying much anyway – it’s been almost two years since I last purchased a book from WotC. Most of my recent 5e purchases have been from 3^rd party publishers like Goodman Games.) 

 

I’m not going to abandon my current Greyhawk campaign. It’s been too much fun – and the characters just made it to level 4! But I think I’ll be using Into the Unknown as the rules base going forward (supplemented with a few 5e options for the sake of continuity).

 

Aside from my current Greyhawk campaign, my focus (as a GM) lately has been on the Against the Darkmaster system. I hope to run a sporadic VsD campaign set in Eriador (Middle-earth) over the next few months. Aside from that, I plan to develop my own setting over the coming year. We’ll see how that goes. (Of course, VsD never used the OGL – and has a generous license for other publishers.)

 

Well that’s all for now. It’ll be interesting to see what happens once OGL 1.1 is unleashed on the world. 

 

Reflection on the Old School Renaissance

There’s a very interesting and detailed “historical look” at the Old School Renaissance (OSR) at the blog “Simulacrum: Exploring OSR Design.” It’s quite long and consists of five posts: part 1 (the 1^st edition-era AD&D adventure modules, and developments away from “old school” style play), part 2 (post-Gygaxian rules developments in AD&D), part 3 (second edition AD&D), part 4 (3^rd edition D&D and the early OSR), and part 5 (the OSR over the past decade or so). I heartily recommend it to anyone interested in the history of D&D and the OSR (but unless you have a free afternoon, you probably will not be able to read all five posts in a single sitting).

 

I was somewhat engaged in the OSR in its “early years” (this blog is on the list of “pivotal early OSR blogs” in part 5 of the “historical look”). I even have a post at Dragonsfoot in what I believe is the first thread in which the term “Old School Renaissance” was used (coined – appropriately enough – by an anonymous poster). (However, T. Foster referred to the “Old School Revival” in an amazingly prescient post a year earlier [2004].)

 

After a decade away from D&D (and relatively little in the way of other RPG activity during that time, despite frequent visits to gaming shops), 3^rd edition lured me back in 2001. But by 2004 I had DM’ed two campaigns with 3^rd edition D&D and had come to find it rather tedious. Once the characters reached 6^th or 7^th level (which took about 10-11 months in my groups, as I was deliberately giving out “stingy” rewards in order to keep things sane) the game simply became a joyless chore. My experiences did not match the fun I remembered having during the 1980s. (I also was a fan of Middle-earth Roleplaying back in the day – indeed, as much of a fan as I was of AD&D. But MERP had gone away with ICE’s loss of the Middle-earth license in 1999, and Rolemaster had evolved into a rules-heavy behemoth in its “Standard System” edition. Of course, I could’ve played MERP again anyway. But I did not consider that option at the time.)

 

So, disillusioned with 3e, I began looking for something different...

 

I was an early Castles and Crusades enthusiast, especially when it promised to be a vehicle for the publication of Gary Gygax’s Castle Zagyg (a version of his original Castle Greyhawk mega-dungeon). That project proceeded quite slowly, alas, and only saw one release directly related to the mythical dungeon: Castle Zagyg: The Upper Works (co-authored by Jeffrey Talanian). Then Gygax shuffled off this mortal coil, at which time the entire project ended. (I still have that box set, which I believe is now quite valuable, along with the other CZ-related products – all carefully packed in a box in storage somewhere. For an excellent, comprehensive review of The Upper Works, see this one by Grodog.) But I eventually drifted away from C&C. One reason was the end of Castle Zagyg. Another, entirely independent of the system itself, was the terrible editing by Troll Lord Games. While Upper Works was fine, almost everything else I read from them (including the core rulebook) was simply too badly edited for me to enjoy.

 

During this same period, fortunately, I also had dusted off and reacquainted myself with 1^st edition AD&D, B/X D&D, the Rules Cyclopedia D&D, and the like. I played in some online (play-by-post) 1e AD&D games (in a Greyhawk one as a cleric of Trithereon). Unlike C&C, this interest in AD&D and D&D persisted. Then came along OSRIC (the 1e AD&D clone), Labyrinth Lord (the B/X D&D clone), Swords & Wizardry (the 0e D&D clone), the fanzines, and so forth. The OSR was well underway – and I signed on.

 

This blog started out as a place for me to talk about old school D&D/AD&D-based games, including especially Swords & Wizardry. I contributed articles to Knockspell and Fight On! back in the day. Having reread many of R. E. Howard’s “Conan” and “Kull” stories in the years immediately before I started this blog, I was interested in house-ruling S&W in order to play some “swords and sorcery” flavoured games. (Those house-rules remain available here; many were later incorporated into Crypts and Things.) I eventually became interested again in more “conventional” modes of play, including especially 1^st edition AD&D, and made a minor contribution back in 2013 to the OSRIC supplement Dangerous Dungeons (“background professions”). I also ran a brief AD&D campaign around that time (2013-14).

 

But I’ve drifted away from active participation in the “OSR scene” in recent years. I never was active on Google+. I sporadically followed what was happening through forums and blogs. But in terms of actual gaming, I have spent more time playing Mythras, Call of Cthulhu, Adventures in Middle-earth, and the like, over the past seven years or so.

 

However, I never abandoned my interest in “old school” Dungeons and Dragons. So I found part 5 of the “historical look” quite informative. It filled me in on what has been happening over the past several years. In a nutshell: it’s largely been fragmentation, decadence, and degeneracy.* I guess not paying attention was beneficial – at least for my mental health. (Unsurprisingly, the pre-OSR, old “old school” communities seem to be carrying on just fine.)

 

 * I should add some caveats to this generalization. An exception seems to be Old School Essentials, which is both quite recent and very much a "clone" of B/X D&D (even more so than Labyrinth Lord was). It seems to be enjoying quite a bit of success. Swords & Wizardry continues to be quite popular (indeed, I received the most recent "box set" edition last year). Crypts and Things continues to enjoy support. And material for AD&D/OSRIC continues to be created, including free material at Dragonsfoot (which of course started before the "OSR"). [Note added 14:35 ET 20 January 2022]