[LotFP] Interview with James Raggi

[Havard]

http://lotfp.blogspot.no/2013/02/grogna ... 0e7c4d1977

Since several of us here have a copy of LotFP and James Raggi hung out with us a bit at the Grand Tour of the Comeback Inn gang back in 2011, I thought it might be of interest


-Havard

[Rafael]

I concur.

[Havard]

Actually, having listened to the whole thing now, Blackmoor gets a brief mention in comparison to LotFP. Also, I found Raggi's thoughts on adventure design quite interesting, as well as the idea of dropping all generic magical items and standard monsters.

His definition of the OSR as anyone doing anything with older editions of D&D or RPGs in general seems quite appropriate IMHO. What do you think?

-Havard

[Rafael]

Well, given that LotFP is the only OSR game so far that has managed to develop a really unique style on its own, I think, when he speaks, people should listen more than they do.

He might not necessarily put out the BEST stuff, gamewise, put he gets his stuff DONE, never misses an announced publication date, and delivers stuff that is well edited and well illustrated.

I could care less that we had a coffee with him two years ago, but I quite simply respect his work.


In that respect, though, I think this whole OSR thing is detrimental to the hobby; if Raggi would make a real step ahead,
and publish his stuff as a fully separate game, he'd be way better off, as would be many others.

[Rafael]

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/193 ... -adventure

This might be of interest, but, being a "player", rather than a collector, I am tempted to refrain, as I have this year's DMing schedule quite full already.

[Havard]

In that respect, though, I think this whole OSR thing is detrimental to the hobby; if Raggi would make a real step ahead, and publish his stuff as a fully separate game, he'd be way better off, as would be many others.

I think that Raggi's point was that the OSR isn't good or bad, it simply is. And that makes sense to me. While there are elements within the OSR, or old school fans at least, who are simply spreading bile and hate across the internet, the fact remains that there are alot of people out there who enjoy the type of game products that were made in the early days of D&D/AD&D. And the awareness that these people exist has sparked a lot of creativity both among the amateur or small time publishers and among fans who just want to share stuff for free.

Personally I am more in the group that think we should be sharing our ideas freely across the Internet than those who want to make a minuscule profit out of their poor quality adventures. But then there are the people like Raggi and Geoffrey MicKinney and all of those people who make good stuff and create the opportunity for us to pay a bit for those books in order to get illustrated printed versions of them. I guess I can't see much wrong with that either.

I really recommend the Walking Eye Interview with Ron Edwards and Victor Raymond for some interesting perspectives on OSR publishers and their Indie RPG counterparts.


-Havard

[Rafael]

You and I agree completely, I think.

It's nice to do something with old games, or, old editions of a particular game, for that matter, but the money-grabbing and the hypocrisy are getting on my nerves.

Raggi ang Geoff do legitimate and good work, but, frankly, most of the other OSR publishers don't, and five years ago, most of that stuff would not even have served as freebies on DF.

What I am saying is, though, I'd like to see a second edition of LotFP, with more elaborated rules, and perhaps a less obvious connection to D&D.
That game as a stand-alone would still rock, and maybe be more flexibly adaptable to the needs of the players.

[Yaztromo]

My impression (from the outside) is that this "business" in the past once or twice helped making good money and now too many people want to have a share of the pie... and it's probably not a big pie as it used to be, with too many people trying to milk some coins (without always offering material worth any coin...).
Who cares? :wink:


WRT OSR and the like: you can choose to work on a ruleset or you can choose to work on a campaign/world setting.
At the moment I can see some really good ruleset with no valuable playing material available (and starting GMs usually need some firm ground to walk on...) and I can see some really good adventures (or world descriptions) that use existing rulesets (like Pathfinder or BECMI retro clones or...).

Personally, in this moment of my life, I'm not overly interested in complex rulesets (although they can be awesome), but rather in something easy and simple, that can be started in minutes rather than in hours, and that can support roleplaying, rather than making it still and plastered with countless dicerolls for every tiny aspect of life.
Maybe in future I'll be interested on some other aspect...

[Havard]

You and I agree completely, I think.

It's nice to do something with old games, or, old editions of a particular game, for that matter, but the money-grabbing and the hypocrisy are getting on my nerves.

Raggi ang Geoff do legitimate and good work, but, frankly, most of the other OSR publishers don't, and five years ago, most of that stuff would not even have served as freebies on DF.

Oh I am pretty sure we see things more or less the same way

My main problem till now has been to articulate how I felt about the whole thing. There are annoying people involved, some are greedy and others are just bile spreading haters. But there are also great people. Remember that the OSR includes both the publishing people and those who are just giving away stuff for free.

So my conclusion is like what Raggi is saying, the OSR simply is. And ultimately I am glad that it is there. I have only ready a small fraction of the material available so it is impossible for me to comment on the overall quality, but in the end what matters is the creativity sparked by this whole phenomenon. So that is why I think that in spite of everything, the OSR is a pretty cool thing

And if some people charge money for crap, then we don't have to buy it do we?

What I am saying is, though, I'd like to see a second edition of LotFP, with more elaborated rules, and perhaps a less obvious connection to D&D. That game as a stand-alone would still rock, and maybe be more flexibly adaptable to the needs of the players.

Could be interesting. But would it be better? The price of removing himself from the D&D origins, would probably mean that many of the old school community would loose interest.

-Havard

[aldarron]

......

Personally I am more in the group that think we should be sharing our ideas freely across the Internet than those who want to make a minuscule profit out of their poor quality adventures. But then there are the people like Raggi and Geoffrey MicKinney and all of those people who make good stuff and create the opportunity for us to pay a bit for those books in order to get illustrated printed versions of them. I guess I can't see much wrong with that either.

-Havard

My impression is that people tend to think of free or pay as one or the other but not both for philosophical reasons, but I favor a more Neutral position. (pun intended) Free stuff, when it's simple or when it's "fair use" material, makes a lot of sense; Maps and tables, monsters and items, short scenarios, guides, sample and "no art" copies and so forth.

Bigger projects though, like a full scale adventure, setting or rulebook, are a different kettle of fish. And here is the thing, free products tend to be used and valued at what they cost. In other words, products that cost nothing don't usually generate much respect. There's no commitment from the "purchaser" and quite possibly the feeling that, since it is free, it might be flawed or outdated or otherwise not up to snuff. So by putting a price on something, you are saying to the purchaser - hey this has special value, consider how you will use it. There's also the cost coverage aspect and the idea of funding of an ongoing enterprise - as is certainly the situation in Raggi's case.