The Current Climate of OSR Relations

[Deleted]

Apr 20, 2017 21:49:37 GMT -6 @dungeonmonkey said:

I am a participant in one of the threads referenced by Gynsburghe in the original post. Like that thread, I have mixed feelings about this one.

I don’t disagree that ODD74 is polite. It is.

And I don’t disagree that civility is a virtue. It is (though I am an imperfect practitioner of it at best).

But I do have reservations about a civility that admits of no divisions or disagreements.

I think the threads here admit to quite a bit of disagreement (perhaps usually the ones I am in) and it can be pretty strongly stated at times. It is easy for me to use hyperbole, perhaps more than is warranted and go over the top from time to time. I think our civility is strong enough to handle a bit of that and things here don't devolve into flame wars and personal insults. I also agree that a negative review of a product when based on merits is not uncivil and I think it is fair to say that something is just not to your taste and identify the things that make it so. I think it is more than fair to point out that some things are NSFW and are not child friendly, especially when they may not be clearly labeled as such, since many of the community are buying things to run with their own and others children. For someone to get upset about that review is unreasonable. What is reasonable it IMO to label your product and identify the target audience, especially if it is a restricted audience because of the type of content.

[coffee]

Apr 20, 2017 21:49:37 GMT -6 @dungeonmonkey said:

It’s reasonable to expect criticism to be substantive, on the merits, rather than based on personal animus or insult.

This is what I mean by ODD74 being civil, or polite, or whatever word you choose. If one of us disagrees with something, it is based on merit (as we see it) and not on the other party themselves. We don't always achieve that, but for the most part we try. And that's why we can discuss things without generating drama.

And that's what keeps me coming back.

[Deleted]

Apr 21, 2017 7:22:26 GMT -6 coffee said:

Apr 20, 2017 21:49:37 GMT -6 @dungeonmonkey said:

It’s reasonable to expect criticism to be substantive, on the merits, rather than based on personal animus or insult.

This is what I mean by ODD74 being civil, or polite, or whatever word you choose. If one of us disagrees with something, it is based on merit (as we see it) and not on the other party themselves. We don't always achieve that, but for the most part we try. And that's why we can discuss things without generating drama.

And that's what keeps me coming back.

That is what I strive for on my forum as well. Again, I view this forum as the role-model for how it is done. The vast bulk of the participating membership here are level-headed and mature people; even our very young members have a maturity far beyond many older adults and they are to be valued, because when we are all dead and gone they will be the ones carrying things on into the future. We should always be mindful of setting a good example for them to follow.

[Gynsburghe]

Apr 20, 2017 21:49:37 GMT -6 @dungeonmonkey said:

I am a participant in one of the threads referenced by Gynsburghe in the original post. Like that thread, I have mixed feelings about this one.

I don’t disagree that ODD74 is polite. It is.

And I don’t disagree that civility is a virtue. It is (though I am an imperfect practitioner of it at best).

But I do have reservations about a civility that admits of no divisions or disagreements. It seems to me that civility is more about trying to disagree respectfully than avoiding disagreement (as distinguished from unnecessary disagreement). I’ve also seen calls for civility used to stifle one side of a legitimate debate in and outside of the OSR. I’m not saying that’s what is happening here. I just think it bears consideration that what is required by civility is sometimes debatable or less than self-evident.

Here’s the rub for present purposes:

Part of the current kerfuffle concerns negative assessments of certain products. I don’t think it can be reasonably argued that civility demands that folks refrain from making negative product reviews. It’s reasonable to expect criticism to be substantive, on the merits, rather than based on personal animus or insult. But a member of ODD74 or any other forum who pans a product on the merits is not being uncivil any more than Roger Ebert was being uncivil when he gave a movie a thumbs down, even if he characterized a given movie’s flaws in colorful prose. There’s a limit to what colorful prose permits within the bounds of civil discourse, of course, but its outer boundaries can be fuzzy sometimes.

I am not suggesting that ODD74 should or should not make space for such reviews or debate—just that there is a place for it somewhere, and it does not constitute “hate.”

When some folks occasionally make criticism more personal than it needs to be, I’d recommend charity if possible—that you try to understand their point of view and the substantive points they are imperfectly expressing. Trust me, you’ll need that charity sooner or later yourself. (I know I will.)

Thanks for hearing me out.

Dungeonmonkey,

I deliberately didn't state where all of this was, but yes, you were present in one of the conversations - but there are others that I am referencing, and again, I'd sooner leave that be.

I believe heavily in personal freedoms, and I despise censorship - I can handle people not liking stuff, even vehemently, including myself. I'm not prone to being offended easily, and I appreciate honesty. What disappointed me was the lack of civility and the attempts at creating an 'us and them' schism that could be very detrimental in the whole community. In some conversations there was a lot of terminology being thrown around which sounds like neo-political rhetoric and really doesn't belong in conversations which are about an inclusive hobby. It is nearly impossible to go onto Facebook or any social media without being bombarded with a lot of this. I applaud those who have taken the higher ground in these conversations, which, in some cases, has seen their decorum ground into the mud as not legitimate.

When I applaud ODD74, it is because of the civility, yes, but also because there is a very diverse group of retrogamers here. We have folks like Gronan, who never stopped rolling on the original rules - and I know that OD&D stands for "the only D&D" for him (AD&D being 'almost D&D'). Others here started with 1e, 2e or... *shudders* one of those later editions (I kid, I kid! I have a sense of humor and it is possible that I've dissed 4e before). They might even play some of those other games. There are those who take Gygax as gospel, others as guidelines - and many are very specific about what elements of the game they consider canon. Some folks prefer the new published stuff to look like classic 1970s output whilst others are trying to push boundaries and thematic content. All of these gamers exist here - and no one has tried to witch hunt them out. That is laudable, that is beautiful, and - honestly - that is the way I would like to see us all treating each other. We can disagree, we can call out stuff we don't like but it should not be done in some of the ways I've been seeing. The world doesn't need more extremism, and writings concerning our silly little hobby, that most people would roll their proverbial eyes at, doesn't need any more reasons to be dismissed.

When I came here, which I guess is 10 years ago - though I post much less than I read - it was because the temperature of other classic D&D boards had started to have hiccups along these lines. This latest flareup is far worse than the ones a decade ago, and it is in line with the 'real world' in its negativity and divisiveness. I'm not the only one discussing this - and a number of us are out there trying our best to spread a little more of a joyous noise.

My little niche in the world of gaming is being a fairly open minded grognard - OD&D and 1e are my classical interests, but I am very, very into the broad OSR movement - all of it, including the maligned authors and artists. I read a lot and I support as much as I can.

I will give charity to those who are prone to hyperbole when it is just that. I'm not going to ignore what I'm seeing though, it would be disrespectful to the longevity of what I love.

I appreciate your words and thoughts, and I am glad that you took the time to read mine and share.

[MormonYoYoMan]

Sm enjoying the civil discourse, the ability to discuss without dissing or cussing, and some of the history points coming out as a side effect. I don't know if being level headed or mature means I have to grow up. I'm too old to become mature.

[Deleted]

Apr 21, 2017 20:18:49 GMT -6 MormonYoYoMan said:

Sm enjoying the civil discourse, the ability to discuss without dissing or cussing, and some of the history points coming out as a side effect. I don't know if being level headed or mature means I have to grow up. I'm too old to become mature.

Part of being really mature and level headed is remaining a child at heart. Little children are very forgiving, until adults teach them not to be, so no you don't have to grow up. What would we do with you, if you did???

[Deleted]

Apr 21, 2017 17:38:55 GMT -6 Gynsburghe said:

You think so?

I saw some of the unnecessary personalization of the debate and rhetoric as more likely to alienate than persuade, but it didn't strike me as nuclear grade (yet).

Maybe some of the sources you are reading are different from the ones I am seeing? Or maybe I am just inured to this kind of combativeness? (Reader's Digest version of my background: working class upbringing, some modest military service, and subsequently joined a profession that collectively has the warmth of the xenomorphs from Alien/s.  So there's a legitimate possibility that I just don't recognize the degree of coarseness and hostility for what it is sometimes.)

The signal-to-noise ratio still struck me as reasonable, particularly as the threads progressed. But I could just be wrong.

Part of my perception also might be that I don't really see the OSR as a movement or a community per se.  I tend to think of the OSR as being more along the lines of a historical period of time. Sort of the post-TSR era of TSR-era D&D. But the folks playing the games don't necessarily have much in common. I guess I don't expect everyone to get along any more than I expect all NASCAR fans to like one another. (The discord doesn't have to be turned up to 11 all the time, of course.)

[grodog]

Apr 20, 2017 21:56:00 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

As long as everybody remembers that I'm always right, things will remain perfectly calm here.

How do I report you, again, Michael?

Allan.

[Deleted]

Good morning, guys!

First off, thanks for the kind words for me earlier in this thread. I appreciate that, and I appreciate and share all the sympathy Fin is getting. I'm gonna echo your thoughts in stating that I've come to know him as an exceptionally smart and calm person, and as somebody who genuinely cares about the people of this community. Whenever I have made any longer opinion posts, I've never hidden that I'm pretty disgusted with the way that some vulture investors are treating our shared hobby; without Fin doing the good work that he does here, I would likely not be involved with the scene at all, any more. So, in one picture: abload.de/img/asrmuu9j.gif

As to the recent comments with regards to the Knights & Knaves Alehouse - please, folks, that's not what this is supposed about to be about, at least not as I was seeing it. The K&K folks, if not our brothers, are our cousins. Any of the perceived "general disagreements" between the two communities, are, in my opinion, either neglectable, or fabricated. (For context to other readers: K&K is traditionally perhaps the most "TSR D&D" community out there, while communities like we here, for example, cover the same era, but tend to focus more on non-TSR stuff. Most of the regulars of K&K at least used to visit other communities that most regulars here also sprang from. So, in short, one knows each other, and the serious confrontations that there have been over the years are more like the awkward Thanksgiving dinner exchange between your drunk uncle and your gay cousin. - I'll leave you to decide who is who. )

The K&K thread lamentably echoes other talking points brought to the public by other, ugh, rpg pundits. And there's when things again come to the general perception of the RPG community as a market, or as a community of users: Because you cannot - or should not - in my opinion, be a seller of stuff, and yet mask as a community advocate. Being a fan, yes, helping out the fans, yes - but not as a speaker. (Important disctinction: Someone who basically has been showing everyone for years how to fill such a duplicitous role gracefully, and without controversy, would be grodog, who has just posted above me. So, it's certainly not impossible to be an involved fan and a producer of content, at the same time.)

Maybe I'm also missing part of the discussion, but my perception of the whole sum of affairs is that's mainly a cry for attention by a group of RPG micro-publishers, after their own businesses went bad amid accusations of sexism and racism. - The people they're attacking, on the other hand, have recently made the rounds collecting prizes by other, more established critics.

What shall I say? I have yet to find out why this whole drama should concern me - or anyone but them among themselves, really. Not taking sides here, just asking - would they make the same kind of noise if they had no product to promote along the way? - To stick with @dungeonmonkey's Roger-Ebert-analogy, yeah, Roger Ebert could well give a movie a thumbs-down. But what we're seeing here is more like two movie directors arguing, with one of them pretending to be a critic.

I also think you nailed the core problem, @dungeonmonkey - "OSR" is not a movement. It's a label, because people have treated it like a label; because in a community, nobody needs to self-define, plain and simple, because it's about what you do, not about you pretend to represent. If we, as a community, want to move on from this perpetual vale of tears that some of those people seem to be locked into, my personal suggestion would be that we create more stuff that is bound to unite us, and not to divide us. Because the dividers are certainly still there.

[hagbard]

I've noticed geeplus getting hot. Seems like certain folks can't be civil, but I don't really make comments out there. This is the only forum I really pay attention to anymore.

[MormonYoYoMan]

One very nice thing about aging poorly (I literally am a genetic mutant) is that I can hardly ever remember who offended me, how, or where I heard or read it.

This convinces me that most of us may have spent too much time letting things and *people who don't matter* affect us, and that the most satisfying power is to ignore the annoying.

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2017 20:50:04 GMT -6 MormonYoYoMan said:

One very nice thing about aging poorly (I literally am a genetic mutant) is that I can hardly ever remember who offended me, how, or where I heard or read it.

This convinces me that most of us may have spent too much time letting things and *people who don't matter* affect us, and that the most satisfying power is to ignore the annoying.

We have to get you a Gamma World campaign going.

You make a very good point!

[Deleted]

Apr 23, 2017 19:56:41 GMT -6 hagbard said:

I've noticed geeplus getting hot. Seems like certain folks can't be civil, but I don't really make comments out there. This is the only forum I really pay attention to anymore.

I'm blissfully unaware of G+ as a general rule. Maybe I'm just an unhip oldster, but I find the G+ format/platform really aggravating in general.

[jdn2006]

The opinions, attitudes, hates, etc. of the online community do not represent the gaming community but rather the very few people who spew them and who perpetuate them here and there on the internet. When forums and blogs primarily focus on the "I hate this." threads, they are boring and irrelevant. Discussions of play interest me - not discussions of rules - and the rest is trivia.

[robertsconley]

1) This is place is one of the friendliest sites involved in the publishing, playing, or promotion of classic editions of D&D i.e. the OSR.

2) What people forget time and time again when it comes to what the OSR is about, what it ought to do, where it is going, that it defining characteristic is the use of open content and leveraging digital technology and the internet for distribution.

This means no gatekeepers, there nothing that the OSR as whole (if it even possible) or individual section can do to impend any projects from being released and distributed.

If your favorite retro-clone or supplement is not open enough or don't like the community that surrounds it you can always go back to original wellspring the d20 SRD and follow the same steps to realize your vision of your product.

Going hand and hand with that the is the fact everybody can and do take this advantage of this freedom within the OSR. So it is any surprise that we have the situation we have? Again the good news is that it is not a zero sum game. The fact that one segment is devoted to preservation has little to do with another segment who like to mix newer mechanics with older edition design. It works for everybody equally well including this community.

[MormonYoYoMan]

If I had the authority to hand out Exhalts, I'd exhault RobertSConley. His paragraph 2 of Post #45 not only defines why we OSR (which now takes on the properties of a verb) but is a good metaphor for how people like us approach Life.

And since I never metaphor I didn't like, let me elucidate.

We are not one specific group with one specific goal. We are, in game terms, lawful chaotic. We're after a style of play in which each gamemaster has morphic rules which enables them to run personalized adventures - and we lump it all under "OSR" more for the spirit of the games than the similarities of rules from one GM to another.

Such an uncoordinated, individual "movement" makes all arguments moot and all discussions fascinating. Just as Dave Arneson was always adapting and advancing the rules behind the screen, we have no "one size fits all." Nor ought we.

If my working rules are different from yours, what difference is that to you or me? How much does knowing the rules mean to players of OSR style? We immerse ourselves into a virtual reality and try anything which might work. Reality doesn't tell us its rules; we have to discover them.

Does bashing one's shoulder against a heavy oak door break it open, or does kicking it work better? Does pulling the pin of a grenade with your teeth really work? If our characters don't know, they learn.

Lawful Chaotic doesn't work in the so-called Real World, but it's the only description we have for our community for it to function AS a community. So much of it depends on stealing from each other and from Arneson's brilliant realization that our childhood games of Cowboys & Indians works for all ages.

But I am obviously preaching to the choir.

[robertsconley]

Expanded my post into an essay on my blog.
batintheattic.blogspot.com/2017/04/what-everybody-forgets-about-osr.html

And thanks for compliment Mormon.

[grodog]

Apr 22, 2017 6:04:40 GMT -6 @rafael said:

Because you cannot - or should not - in my opinion, be a seller of stuff, and yet mask as a community advocate. Being a fan, yes, helping out the fans, yes - but not as a speaker. (Important disctinction: Someone who basically has been showing everyone for years how to fill such a duplicitous role gracefully, and without controversy, would be grodog, who has just posted above me. So, it's certainly not impossible to be an involved fan and a producer of content, at the same time.)

Thanks for the vote of confidence, @rafael. It is appreciated

Apr 26, 2017 9:53:57 GMT -6 robertsconley said:

Expanded my post into an essay on my blog.
batintheattic.blogspot.com/2017/04/what-everybody-forgets-about-osr.html

Good stuff, Rob, and you've raised some excellent points in the continuing discussion on K&K, too---in particular about the ease of use and openness of the OSRIC license, and the OSRIC rules not being as readily available in .docx format as some other retro-clones.

Allan.

[robertsconley]

Apr 26, 2017 12:36:44 GMT -6 grodog said:

Good stuff, Rob, and you've raised some excellent points in the continuing discussion on K&K, too---in particular about the ease of use and openness of the OSRIC license, and the OSRIC rules not being as readily available in .docx format as some other retro-clones.

Allan.

Appreciate the compliment.

As for the openness of OSRIC, while I am a open content advocate I get why OSRIC is setup the way it is. The authors and the Knight and Knaves community want material for AD&D 'as is'. If they want more material they going have to do something different than what happening with Swords & Wizardry, and other more open retro-clones. I just hope that how I came across as I debated and commented on various points over there. I think mentoring, blogging, and commentary on actual play would help a lot to get people more interested in AD&D. Show hobbyists how AD&D works and how fun it is.

That what why OD&D has had a resurgence. Having stuff like Swords & Wizardry be 100% open content certainly helped but the key was various blogs and forums like this one showing people how it worked in actual play, answering questions, as well as commentary.

[Deleted]

Apr 25, 2017 6:52:03 GMT -6 robertsconley said:

Going hand and hand with that the is the fact everybody can and do take this advantage of this freedom within the OSR. So it is any surprise that we have the situation we have? Again the good news is that it is not a zero sum game. The fact that one segment is devoted to preservation has little to do with another segment who like to mix newer mechanics with older edition design. It works for everybody equally well including this community.

The OSR doesn't provide any freedom. People have always been able to produce and sell whatever products they want. However, by making an OSR market, it has encouraged people to release "OSR Games" instead of making a new, wholly original games or simply making product for older D&D versions. It's much easier to stick some house rules into the SRD and call it a new game and then sell product just for that game. DCC is a good example of this. The OSR has created a situation where it's more profitable to create a game line and sell products that only work in that game line than it is to create product usable without conversion in AD&D or B/X. While at the same time limiting games to a handful of D&D sacred cows (AC, hit points, classes, etc) that might otherwise have been re-imagined.

On top of this, since most of the products sold are not for D&D/AD&D (as those players have little need for rulebooks and campaign settings), you end up with the situation where "established critics" are giving each other awards for OSR products that aren't even usable by D&D fans.

On the whole, I'd say that the OSR is bad for D&D and RPGs in general.

[Gynsburghe]

@hedgehobbit: I respectfully see this from a completely different lens - though I confess that I also understand the concern about the stream of 'clones' over 'content'. And in turn, many of the released materials are for those games - but this isn't exactly how they end up being run. Games like DCC or C&C are different enough to make compatibility a chore, but - overall - I think that much of the adventure/module content is used by folks in a variety of settings, including the original games. I tend to follow a number of the OSR streams outside of here (FB, other forums, blogs) and I consistently see folks either running or creating hybrids of the material for classic games. The OGL does not allow for materials to be created for the earlier incarnations of D&D without it simply being free. And whereas I love 'free', the best elements that I have found to add content to my table have not been that particular flavor.

Concerning awards... Well, that is a bone of contention for those who really don't like the material getting the fanfare. I have run LotFP adventures (an example of one hotly contested 'award winner') in AD&D without any difficulty, converting on the fly. Where the issue seems to have its roots is in the variance of its subject matter and presentation - it doesn't *feel* like vanilla D&D, either in prose or delivery. Is that bad? Is Rappan Athuk's S&W version really difficult to run in OD&D? How about Frog God's other setting books? There is a wealth of non-ruleset releases that cannot outright say that they are for "AD&D" or "B/X" or "OD&D". I can convert most of this stuff on the fly - and, honestly, my players aren't grognard (save me, 'grognard-lite') so I can actually get folks to play some of the newer iterations where I couldn't get them to otherwise. The money spent on games is going to folks producing materials in that vein, not Ebay or the collector's market (ok, well, sometimes it is - some of these OSR products go out of print rather quickly).

I can't really see the OSR as bad if it is making materials available, especially when the whole 'retrogaming' end of the hobby is a small niche that went years without ANY support.

WotC has made the earlier rulebooks (slowly) available for PoD - and they are sitting in the top sellers (I spend a bit of time/money on drivethrurpg). I doubt they would officially allow third party support for this - I wonder if they ever regret the OGL in the first place. Then again, it's not like the 2.6% (or whatever percent) of game sales that retroclones represent are causing them a lack of sleep. Pathfinder and 5e command most tables - and it is remarkable to even see OSR products being lauded by awards. Also, like any awards for any media/medium - this is largely agreed or disagreed upon by taste. Easily enough ignored.

YMMV and all that, but I think that it is a bit harsh to refer to the whole OSR as detrimental, incompatible and 'egocentric'.

[Deleted]

Apr 21, 2017 22:26:20 GMT -6 grodog said:

Apr 20, 2017 21:56:00 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

As long as everybody remembers that I'm always right, things will remain perfectly calm here.

How do I report you, again, Michael?

Allan.

1) Buy me a beer.
2) Goto 1.

[Deleted]

I have been reading the posts on here and I partially agree with each of you, but I also have quite a bit of disagreement. First of all I represent that part of old school gaming that does not think of itself as belonging to the "OSR" and does not ever use modules and has little to no interest in them. As the OGL is used mainly for simulacrums, some of which are close to and others that are distant from the original games they based off of and for modules compatible with those simulacrums they really hold very little interest to me. The "OSR" is so vague and diffused it is in many ways IMO irrelevant. I am glad there is no central authority governing an official "OSR." The main thing an "OSR" tag does is hopefully identify the part of the genre that a product will be compatible with. That is not always the case because opinions about what is old school run the gamut from very narrow and defined to very loose and almost anything is included. So there are some things that are "OSR" identified that IMO are not remotely old school. So some things are IMO "OSR" in name only.YMMV I realize that people who view it like me are a tiny minority

I find the simulacrums of considerably more interest than modules because they contain house rules, so you can look at different ways different people handle things. IMO the community is better served by more things that aid gaming instead of modules. YMMV

To reference my impressions from robkuntz new book Dave Arneson's True Genius, I see old school as the original open system that Arneson created for his Blackmoor campaign that was brought to Lake Geneva with nearly two years of development and play testing already completed as a fully functioning game that was being run with a lot of players constantly. Gygax, of course, saw the implications and possibilities and immediately thought of publishing it. At this time the game existed in a pile of notes and in Arneson's head. So Gygax started writing based off of Arneson's notes, playing in Arneson's game and correspondence between the two. As Arneson's notes were not complete and since they did not live next door and did not have email to make communication fast and efficient and easy, Gygax started writing and play testing a version of the game in his new campaign Greyhawk. robkuntz and the other players contributed to the writing of Dungeons & Dragons through their play and their ideas. The open-ended concept and the mechanical ideas were written down filtered through Gygax. So D&D was the Arneson creation with the Gygax interpretation dominating the written word mechanically, but with Arneson's open system intact. Even so, those who played in Blackmoor (and some also in Greyhawk) have testified over the years that D&D did not really change the way Arneson played the game. We also know that Gygax throughout his life and despite how he moved from publicly advocating the open mutable system of OD&D to the much more closed system of AD&D, he always played the open system in his own D&D and AD&D campaigns without the limits that he preached to others. There is one "OSR" writer and I doubt that he would come to any of your minds, that preaches there is no old school or new school at all and that the is no significant difference between OD&D and 3E or any other game, as he has argued on a number of forums. That is why I said above that the "OSR" is vague. I also find it somewhat amusing that someone who claims there is no old school, nevertheless tries to write for that market and claims a seat at the table. Obviously his mileage varies considerably from mine.

Now to be clear, I see Gamma World, Classic Traveller and a number of other games as old school, there was a time when I did not, but I do now. I have gotten less and less rigid (an ongoing process) through talking with robkuntz, while some have gotten extremely rigid and they are all over the map from one end of the spectrum to the other. So in my personal definition (YMMV) of old school is that the more open the systems are the more old school it is and the less open the systems are the less old school it is. So it could have been written yesterday and still be old school IMO.

Also, to be clear, there is nothing wrong with using modules regardless of the reason that you use them. I, on the other hand, advocate self-designed sandbox play where the players are free to make any decision that they want to, without any limits. I consider wilderness adventures, dungeon adventures and anything else all to be sandboxes, whether you put in a lot of time creating it up front or whether you create it in real time on the fly. If I tell my players that they see 10 portals shimmering in the air in front of them, there are usually several options that do not involve going through one of the portals. On the other side of each portal I picture in my minds eye 10 different planets floating in space, each unique and different, and it is never a case of having the same encounter behind all of the doors. My players keep going through portals.

I am supporting the BLUEHOLME™ Journeymanne Rules Kickstarter because I really like seeing the Holmes Rules expanded to Levels 1-20, and with a lot of new Dr Holmes material in it. I don't view it as a replacement for OD&D, but as a resource it is compatible and many of the kickstarter stretch goals items can be used directly IMC. I am not supporting it because it is "OSR" but because IMO it is meaningful and needed to be done and is IMO it ishistorically important to the memory of Dr. Holmes who volunteered his time and skills to making D&D more accessible to beginners who lacked the assumed background knowledge that OD&D assumes. It does not hurt that Vile Traveller, happens to be a great guy and a valued member of many forums, including my own.

I do agree that most of the arguments, drama, and hurt feelings make about as much sense as level limit and alignment arguments do(to paraphrase a member of my forum) or IMO not so much. What Arneson believed his whole life and what Gygax championed back in the beginning is play in a way that is fun for you and your players and it will be completely different from what anyone else is doing, and that is the way it is supposed to be.

I also believe that the "OSR" has both encouraged and stifled creativity at the same time. Because of that the Renaissance part has not been seen to the degree that I think it can and should be seen. I think that the day will come when they (whether many or few) will go back to the original open concept of Blackmoor, Greyhawk, Kalibruhn and OD&D and do something different with it and recapture the lightening in a bottle (product) and it will grow like a wildfire.

IMO it is a shame that the entire contents of Arneson's original notes did not see the light of day and that the notes that Arneson provided for the Blackmoor supplements did not see print, except in part. Again to paraphrase a member of my forum, instead of the editor looking at the notes and failing to make heads or tails of them and putting things by others in the book, you could have said OK here are ten different and contradictory ways to handle X and then print all of them. The Blackmoor supplement could have been all Arneson. IMO our "OSR" authors should think about writing those kind of supplements, grab bags of ideas. People like me would buy stuff like that and IMO others would too. Maps would be great too, especially a map where you could zoom in and print a single hex and key on a single sheet of paper

A member on my forum quoted this portion of the Introduction to OD&D:

INTRODUCTION:
These rules are as complete as possible within the limitations imposed by the space of three booklets. That is, they cover the major aspects of fantasy campaigns but still remain flexible. As with any other set of miniatures rules they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity -- your time and imagination are about, the only limiting factors, and the fact that you have purchased these rules tends to indicate that there is no lack of imagination -- the fascination of the game will tend to make participants find more and more time. We advise, however, that a campaign be begun slowly, following the steps outlined herein, so as to avoid becoming too bogged down with unfamiliar details at first. That way your campaign will build naturally, at the pace best suited to the referee and players, smoothing the way for all concerned. New details can be added and old "laws" altered so as to provide continually new and different situations. In addition, the players themselves will interact in such a way as to make the campaign variable and unique, and this is quite desirable.

Key words and concepts, "guidelines" provide a "framework" for your game of "simplicity" or "tremendous complexity" with the only real limiting factor being time. Begin slowly, build naturally (organically), then add new details, and/or alter old laws to provide continually new and different situations. The decisions the players make will produce a campaign variable and unique.

Does this describe your campaign? If not, why not? The answer to that question is not for you to share so we can judge you, it is for you to answer in your own heart. You should judge yourself and if you are happy with the judgement you make, cool; however, if you are not happy with the judgement you make, then change things in ways that make you happy. I can only speak for myself and say that that does describe all of the campaigns that I have run and am running and I hope it describes the campaigns that many, if not all, of you run.

This has rambled all over the place, but I hope you all followed the gist of what I am saying.

[robertsconley]

Apr 30, 2017 9:29:08 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

The OSR doesn't provide any freedom.

I agree it is the open content that the OSR uses that is free.

Apr 30, 2017 9:29:08 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

People have always been able to produce and sell whatever products they want.

While TSR never owned the concept of RPGs or even the individual components (HP, AC, etc) of what made D&D D&D. The "package" of specific mechanics using specific terms is the problem. It not clear cut as to what is protected or not. In short TSR later Wizards and now Hasbro has grounds to sue somebody publishing a compatible product.

I am not interested in debate the specifics of the issue. That not germane to my point. My point is that the uncertainty is such that you would be well advised to hire an IP attorney to advise you as to what you can and can't do with the IP of another game. That fact was enough to deter most hobbyists from turning their ideas into commercial products. And even the freely shared works has to be careful.

The d20 System Reference Documents released under the Open Game License removes this uncertainty. For classic D&D the d20 SRD happens to contain all the terms and concepts that was needed to make products, even rulesets that were compatible with classic editions. Castles and Crusades was a baby step using this idea. Chris Gonnerman, Stuart Marshall, and Matt Finch developed fully with Basic Fantasy and OSRIC. Once people saw what they did and along with the Wizard did not even issue a cease and desist, the cat was out of the bag.

Apr 30, 2017 9:29:08 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

However, by making an OSR market, it has encouraged people to release "OSR Games" instead of making a new, wholly original games or simply making product for older D&D versions.

All culture from music, art, literature, and games are hybrids. It is rare when a work is truly original with no predecessor. The creative people of every generation stands on the shoulder of those before them. Even Dungeon & Dragon has roots that can be traced back to the miniature wargame community of the Upper Midwest of the late 60s and early 70s. Yet D&D is also at the same time a work genius because it was reflect the work Dave Arneson and Gygax Gygax who took those building block and presented in a new and novel game.

What the OSR "is" is a variety of people using the available tools to rearrange the foundations that Arneson and Gygax used into their vision. For some this inspires them to make a hybrid with you are condemning, yet for other they make completely new RPGs like the DCC RPG, or Dungeon World. Other opt to use this to support various editions 'as is'. You are mistaken if you believe the OSR is about making hybrids.

Apr 30, 2017 9:29:08 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

It's much easier to stick some house rules into the SRD and call it a new game and then sell product just for that game. DCC is a good example of this.

Sorry but given the various mechanics the DCC RPG introduces that are not found in the d20 SRD or any other classic edition the DCC RPG is a very bad example to illustrate your point. If you are going to be critical of something that takes the SRD and slaps some house rules into it then start with my own Majestic Wilderlands. Because that exactly how I designed it to work.

Apr 30, 2017 9:29:08 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

The OSR has created a situation where it's more profitable to create a game line and sell products that only work in that game line than it is to create product usable without conversion in AD&D or B/X. While at the same time limiting games to a handful of D&D sacred cows (AC, hit points, classes, etc) that might otherwise have been re-imagined.

The OSR is taking advantage of the current situation in regards to open content and digital technology. As much as I like to promote the OSR it is not responsible for what we see to day. What the OSR is responsible for it demonstrating how open content made for a more recent edition can be used to create RPGs and material that support older editions. In this regard the OSR is not as important you think it is.

Throughout the time I been publishing, playing, and promoting classic editions I encourage people to support older edition 'as is'. Nobody should feel need to rewrite the rulebook. But on the other hand if you do have an idea for a new set of related rules I encourage that as well. One reason that my view is that the difference between the different classic editions is minimal. Something I experienced first hand while running the Majestic Wilderlands for over 35 years. I started with AD&D 1st Edition and since then I used my campaign in Fantasy Hero, GURPS, Harnmaster, D&D 3rd edition, D&D 4th edition, D&D 5th edition, Fantasy Age, OD&D, plus a friend's 3d6 based homebrew RPG. All through this players were doing basically the same things as they did in the early 80s with AD&D. Exploring dungeons, fighting creatures out of the Monster Manual, and using the wealth found to trash my setting over and over again.

So I know how it to try to run D&D material under a completely different rule system like GURPS. If you want to support an edition 'as is' great. But don't say it a big deal to use a BECMI adventure with AD&D, or vice versa until you done it multiple times with completely different RPGs like I have. The only D&D edition that is problematic is 4th edition due to the fact is completely different game.

Apr 30, 2017 9:29:08 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

On top of this, since most of the products sold are not for D&D/AD&D (as those players have little need for rulebooks and campaign settings), you end up with the situation where "established critics" are giving each other awards for OSR products that aren't even usable by D&D fans.

How about some specifics? What about Kellri's material for AD&D, The Advanced Adventures line again for AD&D. Or wait how about the material Goblinoid Games publish and B/X D&D. What makes my Majestic Wilderlands unusable by this community or better yet my Scourge of the Demon Wolf? Both written with OD&D in mind. I will go even further a field with James Raggi's Death Frost Doom. What about that product that makes it unusable for a OD&D campaign 'as is'?

Apr 30, 2017 9:29:08 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

(as those players have little need for rulebooks and campaign settings)

You know who won that debate when it was between Gary Gygax and Bob Bledsaw? (Hint: it wasn't Gygax)

[robertsconley]

Apr 30, 2017 10:09:46 GMT -6 Gynsburghe said:

it doesn't *feel* like vanilla D&D, either in prose or delivery.

Exactly. A lot of folks writing under the banner of the OSR, including myself, do just this. We write in our voice. Mr. Raggi is all about weird horror. I like to focus on adventures that rise out of clash of culture, religions, and/or politics. Which tend to make them more about NPCs rather than the creatures in Monsters and Treasure. Other OSR Authors have their own take.

[robertsconley]

I got done reading Dave Arneson's True Genius myself. I have to say that overall Rob Kuntz doesn't get it. Yes many of individual points he makes are valid. But like so many others he focuses too much on the nuts and bolts of rules, along with a huge basis against the commercialization of tabletop roleplaying. And with all due respect to Rob Kuntz, he has it wrong how the nature of the rules and commercialization impact the hobby today.

Here are my observations

The rules of ANY RPG are just tools to run a tabletop roleplaying campaign. Where Dave Arneson's True Genius lies is in putting together a way of running in one's leisure time a pen & paper virtual reality. How? He took the idea of a campaign of interlinked sessions, combined it with a focus on each player playing an individual character, and finally fused it with the idea of a human referee using his judgment to adjudicate what happens when the the players try to interact with the setting along with bringing the setting of the campaign to life. Many of the pieces already existed but Dave was the first to put them together in a way that worked and thus created a whole new type of game.

In this the actual rules are incidental. They are just one tool out of many that a referee uses to make a tabletop RPG campaign happen the way Dave set it up. However players and referee have a lot of balls to juggle. So if a specific rules happens to work with the way they think, and give the details on the things they think is important then that set of rules will be preferred by that group. This observation is reinforced by the numerous anecdotes on how Dave continually evolved his rules as new things were tried in his campaigns.

For one group this could be a simple a single d6. For another it is OD&D, for a third it could be GURPS that does the trick. So while rules are incidental to running a tabletop roleplaying campaign. The rules are of huge importance to the ENJOYMENT of a tabletop roleplaying campaign. Because of this enjoyment factor when it comes to talking and writing about tabletop RPGS people talk about the rules all the d**n time. Over and over again it is the rules that, and the rules this when the rules are probably the least important part of making it actually work.

So I don't agree with Rob Kuntz's point about open or closed systems. If you focus first on the rules you using to run a tabletop campaign then you are going to have problems period. What the alternative? Figure out the setting first. It is the setting the sets the limits on what characters are capable of. For a good example look at John Carter of Mars vs. Lord of the Rings. The assumptions of the two make for very different campaigns with the characters capable of very different things. However if I tried to use a set of Middle Earth rules 'as is' to run a Barsoom campaign it likely not going to work well until I house rule the shirt out of it. Yet with a rules first approach that what many people try to do with tabletop roleplaying.

You could say well that set of Middle Earth RPG rules is a closed system we should go something more open. I agree negatively, because again that is focusing on the rules first. A common fallacy that occurs with this thinking is that lite mechanics = more open. Well the Toon RPG is pretty lite as RPGs go and still wouldn't be a good fit for a Barsoom campaign. No in my view the answer is setting first, rule second. If the rules conflict with the setting then it is the rules that need to bend not the other way around.

How does the OSR come into all this? Well it doesn't really. Why? Remember the deal with the genesis of D&D is that it took place in the wargaming community of the Upper Midwest during the late 60s and early 70s. There wasn't a lot published for wargames back then. In the words of Gronan, they made up shirt that they thought was fun. This produced in effect a fermenting vat of wargaming mechanics that people picked from in order to run specific scenarios and later campaigns. Hey look at Diplomacy, you know if we rearranged the map slightly and fought out the battle with miniatures we can fight the whole of the Napoleanic Wars! (A few weeks later) You know we really need a referee. Hey Dave!

However some folks, and not just Gygax, felt their ideas were solid enough to be published. That take money, that has to earned back through profits. And to be able to do that, you have to avail yourself of copyright and turn into a bit of an not a very nice person when it comes to people using your work. Which of course it directly at odds with the freewheeling days of the wargaming community.

I said that rules are incidental to the campaign, but as referee you do need something to use to adjudicate with so you pick and choose. Now some would say "Hey Rob, Gygax publishing didn't limit what you pick and choose." True but in order to pick and choose you need some pool of information to pick from in the first place. And that happens through the process of sharing. And as it so happens that if a set of rules are under copyright there are limits to what you can share even if you don't charge anything. On one hand D&D got wider distribution because it was published but afterward it limited what could be shared. Now I will say in practical terms with all the zines and photocopies floating around it didn't matter much at first. But as the industry grew and things got more organized things tightened up.

As it turns out there was another group in a completely different creative field that had this problem as well, Computer Programmers. And boy did they ever fixed it by adopting what is now called Open Source. The way it work is that a piece of code is shared by a programmer and a copyright license is attached to it. The license say that if you use this code then you must include a copy of it free for your user to copy when you distribute yourself along with any changes and addition you make on top of it. By doing this computer programmer were able re-ignite the situation they had back in the 50's, 60's and early 70's where people were freely sharing code. In also gave birth not only to a renaissance in hobbyist programming, but also created multi-million dollar companies like Red Hat. Along with everything in between.

In a fit of sanity and generosity, Wizards did the same in 1999 with the d20 System Reference Document being made open content under the open game license. Which as I said in earlier post contains all the terms and definition one needs properly support classic D&D edition 'as is'. It took a couple of years but with OSRIC and Basic Fantasy as trail blazers now the path was open for everybody to freely share. Thus expanding the pool of what you can pick and choose from when you use an edition of classic D&D to run your tabletop campaign.

That is the single most important driving what we are doing today as a hobby. And that in conjunction with the ease of distribution enabled by digital technology has returned us back to the situation we had circa 1970s before the commercialization of tabletop roleplaying. The OSR? The OSR is just a convenient label to describe what a bunch of people are doing with that freedom in regards to classic D&D.

The same thing is benefiting fans of D&D 5e, and D&D 3.X in the form of Pathfinder, along with Fate. Each of these groups among others can freely share in any manner THEY see fit the ideas they have for their favorite set of rules. Which is why today is a second golden age of tabletop roleplaying.

[KrinnPhindalin]

Apr 20, 2017 21:56:00 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

As long as everybody remembers that I'm always right, things will remain perfectly calm here.

Well said.

[Gynsburghe]

Apr 30, 2017 21:51:08 GMT -6 robertsconley said:

The OSR? The OSR is just a convenient label to describe what a bunch of people are doing with that freedom in regards to classic D&D.

The same thing is benefiting fans of D&D 5e, and D&D 3.X in the form of Pathfinder, along with Fate. Each of these groups among others can freely share in any manner THEY see fit the ideas they have for their favorite set of rules. Which is why today is a second golden age of tabletop roleplaying.

And that is the crux of the biscuit for me. It is just a label, albeit convenient, to allow folks to find materials that are compatible, comparable, or complimentary.

@theperilousdreamer : I appreciate the DIY aspects of roleplaying to a very high degree - I also love to take material that has been developed and tweak it in my own weird little ways (to the point of totally rewriting modules, especially 'the classics' to keep players on their toes). I recently (like Saturday) came across a system-neutral regional setting that was remarkably compatible in presentation to the homebrew I am working on and, prior to that, another for a retroclone that had an otherworldly aesthetic that really got my wheels spinning. I love campaign setting materials almost as much as I love making stuff up, it's like finding common ground in cross pollination. My games are very sandbox, even when I'm not running OD&D or AD&D - I find that published adventures give me a safety net - and that might not be everyone's bag. My current group, set in the 2e Kingdoms of Kalamar, has utilized Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh (abandoned due to homebrewed events that will haunt them later) and Tragedy in the House of Brodeln (which, other than the primary town, has been largely ignored but the timeline progresses) - but they are merely backdrops, conveniently there when I wish to fill in details. I'm sort of known amidst those who have gamed with me for my improvisation and convolution of plotlines - I like to have a lot going on, some of which is completely behind the scenes. I think I sort of use modules the way others use the mechanical 'house rules' stuff - I take what I need and leave the rest, supporting the efforts of those that made them regardless.

Resources like the Fight On! fanzine and it's descendants are really beautiful expressions of the continued fascination of our beloved Old School rulesets. These boards that celebrate it, the Facebook forums that keep it in your face, and everyone still writing blogs - all parts of the OSR, though that 'convenient label' may rankle some.

Without these efforts, there wouldn't be any visible signs of OD&D or other 'old school' games - and I suppose that those of us who are still entranced by them would keep them alive at our tables regardless. Personally, I don't want to be back in the 90s thinking I was the only one playing 1e again, trying to find scraps on what little stuff other folks were doing. Dragonsfoot was a revelation for me when I found it, because I felt 'not alone'. Whereas I owned OD&D books for quite some years, without this site I doubt I would have acquired such an immense attraction to them. Perhaps now I realize that I was swayed by that 90s feeling of playing something nobody else does and I could overcome it and make new players. I don't think I would have had the proverbial huevos without the support of those who have made these waves.

We are indeed in the second Golden Age, and I can totally understand still being in the first - they aren't all that different, save for what we use to create. There is more that unites us than what separates us - a lesson that has many levels as we shuffle through this mortal coil playing silly games about godforesaken holes in the earth and bogeymen of our own creation.

[Deleted]

Apr 30, 2017 20:17:12 GMT -6 robertsconley said:

You are mistaken if you believe the OSR is about making hybrids.

I'm not arguing that the OSR is about hybrid games, only that the structure of it encourages hybrids. Consider DCC. Reading it, I get the feeling that they were moving along a line from strict D&D clone to a completely new game but stopped halfway and printed it instead simply because a game needs to maintain a certain level of similarity to D&D in order to qualify for the OSR market. That some of the mechanics could have been simpler or more elegant if they didn't have to stick to D&D rules.

Obviously, I can't prove this argument as I'm arguing for an alternate history, but I'm just considering the possibility of a situation where the d20 SRD never existing (or existing in a more limited way). As you said in your other post, the rules are incidental to the play style. So maybe an alternate OSR that didn't have the SRD to rely on would have created more original games that fit closely to the Arnesonian play style without sticking so slavishly to the rules of D&D. More Barbarians of Lemuria, fewer LotFP.

[robertsconley]

May 3, 2017 11:30:35 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

Apr 30, 2017 20:17:12 GMT -6 robertsconley said:

You are mistaken if you believe the OSR is about making hybrids.

I'm not arguing that the OSR is about hybrid games, only that the structure of it encourages hybrids.

I apologize I dropped the work just. My statement should be

You are mistaken if you believe the OSR is just about making hybrids.

And yes I concur that the structure encourages hybrids. Again I apologize for my poor grammer.

May 3, 2017 11:30:35 GMT -6 @hedgehobbit said:

Obviously, I can't prove this argument as I'm arguing for an alternate history, but I'm just considering the possibility of a situation where the d20 SRD never existing (or existing in a more limited way). As you said in your other post, the rules are incidental to the play style. So maybe an alternate OSR that didn't have the SRD to rely on would have created more original games that fit closely to the Arnesonian play style without sticking so slavishly to the rules of D&D. More Barbarians of Lemuria, fewer LotFP.

At some point it boils to founders effect and random chance. There was interest in classic D&D in the 90s. It just the communication infrastructure of the internet wasn't mature to make different groups of classic edition fans aware of each other. Or fans of how Dave Arneson handled things.

All the pieces that benefited fans of Gygaxian D&D are there to publish, promote, or play the Arnesonian play style. Not just open content but print on demand, PDFs, etc. Because of Rob Kuntz's book people here and other forums are talking about it. The time is ripe for somebody to take the bull by the horn and share something that show people how it works in actual play.

What I recommend to write some work that support actual play either as a RPG or supplemental material. That you put under the OGL or the Creative Common as open content so others can use it as foundation for their own take on Arnesonian gaming.

Talking about theory is interesting but nothing will happen unless people show how that works at the table. That why Gygax gets a lot of the limelight, by writing the original Dungeon & Dragon he opened what Dave invented to the rest of the gaming hobby. Now the pieces are in play for somebody to do it again but reflecting more of Dave's vision rather than the hybrid of the two author that OD&D was.