|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 28, 2021 14:48:49 GMT -6
Well worth reading, especially the latter. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jun 28, 2021 16:14:23 GMT -6
Well worth reading, especially the latter. Thank you! |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 28, 2021 18:22:03 GMT -6
Jason, we need a thread with your two links (the second one in particular) at the top, rather than buried on page 5. I think that your OSR blog has some great thoughts and such.  |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Jun 28, 2021 19:05:54 GMT -6
I didn't realize OSR had become a derogatory term, or that the OSR was dead. My blog readership dropped off a cliff a couple years ago, but I chalked that up to the rise of social media (microblogs like Twitter, Facebook), and that I changed my blog address to consolidate my various blogs. I used to use blogger as websites to park projects at, but it was confusing, one reader referring to me as "he of the many blogs". (Now I just have 2: one for art, one for games). However sales of my OSR books have remained steady. Though to me it is just a hobby and most of whatever I make goes into buying more books and games. |
|
jonsalway
Level 1 Medium
Enter your message here...
Posts: 23
|
Post by jonsalway on Jun 29, 2021 4:27:08 GMT -6
I find the whole thing quite fascinating. OD&D will always have a big place for me because that's the system I learned first but I do see a place for retro clones (well, most of 'em). But the whole "If you're not with us, you're agin' us" thing is pointless and always worth arguing against.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jun 29, 2021 5:05:01 GMT -6
Jason, we need a thread with your two links (the second one in particular) at the top, rather than buried on page 5. I think that your OSR blog has some great thoughts and such. I haven't pushed it because someone always comes along to make vague snarky remarks about it or flat out insult me over it because they disagree with my thoughts, and I've just grown so tired of arguing my opinions on the Internet. I'm basically out of hit points for the battle. That being said, if you think it'll make for good discussion, go for it. I'll probably stay tangential as I've outlined my thoughts pretty thoroughly there  . |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 29, 2021 6:21:26 GMT -6
Could it just be that there is simply no longer a central cause that people who otherwise would have been disconnected from one another rallied around, primarily the initial publication of clones.
Imagine entering the hobby now. Where is the concentration of the old school philosophy that embodied the OSR and its diy ethos?
Sure it still exists in places like this forum. But it has become very disjointed and concentrated in small places. Maybe a person could argue that I imagined that connecting point really existed, that it’s always been a disjointed pocket full of people interested in old games. That makes it sound so egocentric to me. I think I was observing something else otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Jun 29, 2021 6:33:48 GMT -6
An excellent discourse on the meaning and history of "OSR" as a phenomenon. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 29, 2021 6:57:34 GMT -6
Jason, we need a thread with your two links (the second one in particular) at the top, rather than buried on page 5. I think that your OSR blog has some great thoughts and such. I haven't pushed it because someone always comes along to make vague snarky remarks about it or flat out insult me over it because they disagree with my thoughts, and I've just grown so tired of arguing my opinions on the Internet. I'm basically out of hit points for the battle. That being said, if you think it'll make for good discussion, go for it. I'll probably stay tangential as I've outlined my thoughts pretty thoroughly there . I get that. Sometimes I go to the Admin section here and rattle off some random thoughts about gaming. It's a good thing to do occasionally, but I don't really want to have to defend it against invaders either. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Jun 29, 2021 8:19:46 GMT -6
Could it just be that there is simply no longer a central cause I think that is exactly it. Today's OSR is weak. It is scattered, divided, leaderless.  |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jun 29, 2021 10:38:05 GMT -6
Could it just be that there is simply no longer a central cause I think that is exactly it. Today's OSR is weak. It is scattered, divided, leaderless. Some people take issue with any language that suggests the OSR was organized. I get that. So, I'd join badger2305 in describing it as a phenomenon. The one resulting good thing, someone else mentioned and I agree currently exists, is more old school opportunities to play at cons than existed in the past. I'd credit that to the OSR. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2021 19:29:22 GMT -6
You could take in account that not necessarily everyone on internet is from USA or speak English fluently, most of us are doing our best to communicate and exchange experiences on internet. I can see how the term "so called" can bring a cultural stigma for some people, but for a lot others it doesn't mean nothing else than what it should mean, which I guess could be an alternative way to say "what they call". Most of time when we fell insulted by something, it can be pretty much we insulting ourselves, since we attach arbitrary (non-existent) meanings to things. I never saw someone using the term to imply that you guys are being delusional, but maybe my English isn't really good enough to understand those kind of details. If you felt insulted I ask you sorry.
In standard American writing, the use of "Scare Quotes" and the term "so-called" combine to a very strongly implicit accusation of the term being wrong somehow. "so called" is axiomatically accusing the object of the adjective of not matching its name. the use of "scare quotes" is axipmatically the author distancing themselves from whatever is the noun modified. So, yeah, it's pretty much aimed at giving offense, by accusing those accepting the label as not doing what the label implies. Thank you for your explanations about the usage of the term.
Honestly, I keep seeing the term "so called" being used all the time, only today I've saw it thrice, once in a technical document (a Wikipedia article in fact) and twice in a technical book, and I don't think in any of these cases it's implying that the term is wrong or something worse.
So it stills confuse to me that it would be the case, but Greyharp helped me a lot in PM and I understood that in some contexts I can benefit from refraining of its usage.
I appreciate a lot when people can give feedback because sometimes is not easy to learn some details of a foreign language specially if no one tells you what you're doing wrong.
|
|
aramis
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 199 
|
Post by aramis on Jul 2, 2021 4:51:34 GMT -6
In standard American writing, the use of "Scare Quotes" and the term "so-called" combine to a very strongly implicit accusation of the term being wrong somehow. "so called" is axiomatically accusing the object of the adjective of not matching its name. the use of "scare quotes" is axipmatically the author distancing themselves from whatever is the noun modified. So, yeah, it's pretty much aimed at giving offense, by accusing those accepting the label as not doing what the label implies. Thank you for your explanations about the usage of the term. Honestly, I keep seeing the term "so called" being used all the time, only today I've saw it thrice, once in a technical document (a Wikipedia article in fact) and twice in a technical book, and I don't think in any of these cases it's implying that the term is wrong or something worse.
So it stills confuse to me that it would be the case, but Greyharp helped me a lot in PM and I understood that in some contexts I can benefit from refraining of its usage.
I appreciate a lot when people can give feedback because sometimes is not easy to learn some details of a foreign language specially if no one tells you what you're doing wrong.
It's one of those elements that some don't see, and many more find in that "low-level troll" mode. I always default to assuming someone online is ignorant rather than a troll when such errors happen, and ignorance is easily cured by education. Especially if bilingual. When I was at my best, my Russian was pretty bad. My ASL is heavily influenced by initial exposure to a bad dialect. (Yes, American Sign Language has dialects. Differences in size, speed, specific word signs, borrowings from SEE, FSL or BSL...) have a link to a dictionary that shows I'm not "talking through my hat" (= making things up) following the implied accusation of dissembling by the guy with the vampire avatar in his disagreement... www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/so-calledNote that the second definition is implicit misuse. This is the only one that puts labeling use first. Another US dictionary: www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/so-calledAnd another: www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/so-calledAnd another dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/so-calledThat's the top five non-advert non-openly-editable dictionaries. |
|
|
|
Post by jdn2006 on Jul 10, 2021 11:15:27 GMT -6
When I came into the OSR way back then it was touted by some as a legal way of printing/distributing material for old games with supposedly no worries about copyrights etc. Which is fine; I participated without much originality because I wanted some old modules remade. What I found was that the explanation "It can't be an exact copy, only 90% or so on." meant, "I changed this-that-and-the-other thing." Fine, except their changes often equate to those houserules they prefer to "fix things". I can make my own house-ruled game and have done so and the result is neither D&D nor a better game, just something catered to my preferences.
I have turned away from forums after one too many "This is broken. Here's how I fixed it!" post, with house rules following. Okay, except quit saying something is "broken", just say "this is how we prefer to play."
The problem with some monotonously repeating threads on "broken" aspects is the nauseating obsession with "rules," not playing. The "rules" used to be kits covering only some very, very basic ideas (no way could they cover every situation the gamers could think up) added to by the playing group, using common sense and imagination not a reference set on a forum. The outcome was the fun, not how the fun got there.
But, the whole "legality" concern was fuzzy at best and people have and do make/distribute new materials for old games without (it seems) much fuss. The old rules are now cheap as pdfs; printing is no difficulty. And like anyone I can suggest alternates to various items, if that is how I want to play. People do not have to agree with me any more than I have to agree with them.
Indeed, I prefer people who do not play "the rules" but rather play "the adventures".
|
|
premmy
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 295
|
Post by premmy on Jul 10, 2021 11:39:26 GMT -6
When I came into the OSR way back then it was touted by some as a legal way of printing/distributing material for old games with supposedly no worries about copyrights etc. Which is fine; I participated without much originality because I wanted some old modules remade. What I found was that the explanation "It can't be an exact copy, only 90% or so on." meant, "I changed this-that-and-the-other thing." Fine, except their changes often equate to those houserules they prefer to "fix things". I can make my own house-ruled game and have done so and the result is neither D&D nor a better game, just something catered to my preferences. I have turned away from forums after one too many "This is broken. Here's how I fixed it!" post, with house rules following. Okay, except quit saying something is "broken", just say "this is how we prefer to play." The problem with some monotonously repeating threads on "broken" aspects is the nauseating obsession with "rules," not playing. The "rules" used to be kits covering only some very, very basic ideas (no way could they cover every situation the gamers could think up) added to by the playing group, using common sense and imagination not a reference set on a forum. The outcome was the fun, not how the fun got there. But, the whole "legality" concern was fuzzy at best and people have and do make/distribute new materials for old games without (it seems) much fuss. The old rules are now cheap as pdfs; printing is no difficulty. And like anyone I can suggest alternates to various items, if that is how I want to play. People do not have to agree with me any more than I have to agree with them. Indeed, I prefer people who do not play "the rules" but rather play "the adventures". I think what you're missing is that things change over time, and the OSR is no exception. When it began, the "legal loophole to publish things" was very clearly the focus. Contrarily to your assertion, it wasn't "fuzzy at best"; it was THE THING. Anyone who followed the debates about OSRIC on Dragonsfoot at the time can tell you that. Then, after a while, the focus shifted to "here's my improved version of D&D". And, even later, a third direction emerged, which focused on taking the fundamental rule structures of D&D and applying it to other things, such as sci-fi gaming. All three are perfectly valid reasons to to be involved with the OSR. If you, personally, are not interested in one of these focuses (say, "here's my improved version"), then that's fine. Don't engage with that focus. But don't begrudge other people the freedom to engage with that part of the OSR, because their interests are just as valid as yours. |
|
jamiltron
Level 2 Seer
Always looking for games/player in West LA
Posts: 44
|
Post by jamiltron on Jul 10, 2021 12:04:05 GMT -6
I definitely need an option for "It's complicated"  I am a very big banner waver for the OSR generally in the various places I hang out and chat in, because its recognizable by lots of roleplayers as a thing that mostly gets to what I'm talking about. I remember almost quitting D&D entirely when 3rd edition came out, and it was the various "OSR" communities, Castles & Crusades, and Labyrinth Lord that really reminded me I could play versions of the game I love and that there were lots of other people out there who also enjoyed these games. I've met a lot of great people through various versions of the OSR, played a lot of games, and I think both on a hobbyist and commercial level a lot of great tools, adventures, ideas, etc. has been produced by various versions of the community. That said I don't think there is a single OSR, and some subcommunities throughout the OSR I am definitely less connected to, even if I do respect them. I also think there's a tendency for some subcommunities to over-focus on a single individual's interpretation of a playstyle produced by the old games and use that as a metric to whether or not a game is "old school" or not, despite the interpretation often being extremely modern. I go back and forth with a lot of the "Primers" and "Manifestos" and such in the OSR - sometimes I think they describe really fun playstyles to try out, but people become zealous with them thinking that style is the be all end all to old school gaming. So yeah, I am personally fond of the OSR as a general concept, even if I am not connected to every single subcommunity that also identifies with the label. |
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jul 10, 2021 13:42:43 GMT -6
The OSR is what got me re-interested in D&D and introduced me to older versions in 2010 or so. I started with B/X and briefly flirted with 3E, but apart from that other editions had passed me by that point. The OSR scene is also what led me to expand the scope of my Holmes Basic errata document into what eventually grew into the BLUEHOLME™ Journeymanne Rules. So I would say it has influenced me greatly.
However, I don't really identify with "the movement" that much, and in marketing terms it has become a bit of a liability these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Jul 12, 2021 22:03:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Jul 12, 2021 22:33:15 GMT -6
For my part, if OSR includes TSR-era D&D/AD&D, I'm all about the OSR. They are my favorite versions of the game, and whenever I've run D&D for my friends in the last few years, I've used B/X, 1e, or 2e. I've made it clear I don't care for the d20 system. My experience with 5e is minimal, and I don't dislike it as much as 3e (I never tried 4e). However, I have no desire to invest cash, time, or energy into learning a whole new ruleset.
If OSR only includes the various retroclones, then I'm much less invested in it. While I have downloaded some of the free versions offered by the different creators, the only game I've bought and played is Basic Fantasy RPG. I have nothing against the other games, but since I still have the old rulebooks, I'm more likely to play one of those instead. I make an exception for BFRPG because while it plays like B/X, it has several differences that let me do what I want to do with my game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Jul 12, 2021 23:08:45 GMT -6
After putting much thought into this, I have come to realize that my investment in the OSR scene is pretty much this forum and my very small OBS store. My investment in OSR itself, however, is much greater. Almost all of my RPG tinkering is either Original D&D flavored or Classic Traveller flavored. I read a lot of other stuff, but when I actually do the work, this is where it all lands. So, while my actual gaming wound up at 5e (Boo! Hiss!) my heart stays with the OSR.
|
|
|
|
Post by boggit on Jul 16, 2021 2:48:15 GMT -6
If by OSR we mean: emphasis on DIY, emphasis on older styles of play over newer styles of play, emphasis on older, pre-SRD rule sets and an emphasis on older fantasy (S&S) settings over newer (more heroic) ones, then, yes, I am all about the OSR! This. For my part, I was into older editions of D&D several years before the term OSR was coined and I will probably play older editions of D&D long after OSR stops being considered cool. I am, however, appreciative of the fact that the OSR label/moniker/trend has increased the output of worthy game content for such older editions. A lot of the current in-vogue subtrends, with OSR zines about yeast magic and ten hex space lego sandboxes, tend to fly pretty far away from what I usually enjoy, though I mind such experimental settings and rules much less than I do the bland, anime-infused fantasy superhero fare that seems to be the default feel of the current edition. |
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Aug 23, 2021 23:26:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Aug 24, 2021 2:15:50 GMT -6
I seem to have missed this thread during its original run (there may be an analogy here). Honestly, while a lot of people would tell me "of course you are invested in the OSR; you publish a zine, you have released full games, and you waste a lot of your time on the Internet talking about this stuff", I have been really doubtful for a few years.
One thing is that I really enjoyed the creative exploration and practical experimentation of the mid- and late 2000s. That freed up a lot of creative energies, and created strong creative communities (this one included). I started to get a bit doubtful precisely the time it began to be referred as "the OSR". It somehow became less of a wild open territory, and more of an enclosure if it makes sense. There were of course always competing visions about old-school gaming (Hackmaster fans vs. AD&D fans, OSRIC vs. C&C, and so on, even a bit of Fight On! vs. Knockspell), but this change really made it about personal turfs, brand labels, and much more talking past each other than actually engaging in dialogue and active idea exchange. I really do think the community has changed, and not for the better.
"But Melan, you are a hypocrite! You have a blog, and you sell products." Yes, I am also a part of society, which does not always mean I am always in favour of everything society does. In my defence, I agree firmly with those who posted that forums are a much better platform for shared ideas than blogs (mine was only founded in 2016, when they were already going out of fashion), and that social media is actively inimical to what we are ?supposed? to be doing - at least the way I see it. And I was also happy to write for Fight On! and Knockspell, or publish things for free, until both zines stopped publication, and I realised that free stuff was getting no respect anymore. So I started self-publishing, and it makes me reasonably happy, and a bunch of readers reasonably happy. It is a compromise that works for me.
However, I do not consider myself a part of the modern "OSR" (scare quotes intentional). Even beyond the original change mentioned above, much of the scene has gone awry from my point of view. It seems to have lost its focus as a coherent design movement, and dissolved into barely connected sub-communities. In many of these, certainly some of the most visible ones, the carefully rediscovered design lessons of old D&D seem to be lost again. From an appreciation of large dungeons (for instance), we have gone back to anemic little mini-lairs that are better illustrations than gameplay locales. From fantastic sword & sorcery or high fantasy gaming, we have gone back to late 2e conceptual weirdness, which might be fine on its own, but seems all airy-fairy without a solid grounding. From open-ended modes of play, we are going back to old and new forms of railroading. It is as if the whole spirit of old-school rediscovery has been inverted, or gone back to the point most of us wanted to leave behind.
I will also mention - and not go into it in depth because this is not the place - that when it started out, old-school gaming was genuinely for "everyone"; that is, anyone with an active and honest interest in these old games (and their derivatives, cousins and offshoots, EPT, Arduin and Encounter Critical included), and playing them. For a few years, there have been conscious efforts to "cleanse" the scene of "undesirables" in much the same way other hobbies have been "cleansed". This is actually a big deal. Not because of me, personally (I got the treatment this year, and got through fairly OK), but about how you treat your fellow gamers, and the way you form claims, political or othrwise, on things that do not belong to you.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 24, 2021 6:04:01 GMT -6
For a few years, there have been conscious efforts to "cleanse" the scene of "undesirables" in much the same way other hobbies have been "cleansed". This is actually a big deal. Not because of me, personally (I got the treatment this year, and got through fairly OK), but about how you treat your fellow gamers, and the way you form claims, political or othrwise, on things that do not belong to you. I find this puzzling. Though I agree with the sentiment, I actually don’t recognize the conscious effort to “cleanse” the hobby. Could you elaborate in the most general of ways. When and why do you think this is the case? |
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Aug 24, 2021 8:02:58 GMT -6
For a few years, there have been conscious efforts to "cleanse" the scene of "undesirables" in much the same way other hobbies have been "cleansed". This is actually a big deal. Not because of me, personally (I got the treatment this year, and got through fairly OK), but about how you treat your fellow gamers, and the way you form claims, political or othrwise, on things that do not belong to you. I find this puzzling. Though I agree with the sentiment, I actually don’t recognize the conscious effort to “cleanse” the hobby. Could you elaborate in the most general of ways. When and why do you think this is the case? Excuse me for butting in here, but Melan may be expressing the same grievance that Ernie Gygax has against Wizards of the Coast. Mainly that, to grow the D&D customer base, Wizards appeals to the sensibilities of a diversity of players, some of whom were made to feel insulted by the depictions of their sexes/ethnicities in the editions of the game (and the literature that it was based on) that were marketed to white men of roughly our age. If said core demographic still identifies with the conventions and characterizations of those older games, some of them may try to defend, publicly, the attitudes that antagonize more diverse (and more visible) players. Some of these newer players will, in turn, gather on-line support against the out-moded expressions of whichever particular veteran of tabletop gaming made comment. He will then be dis-invited to participate in the "community". Thank you, social media:P |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 24, 2021 8:24:08 GMT -6
DING DING
ROUND 2......
I am not implicating this is a boxing match or sparring between members. Just that the thread is back up and on it's feet and ready to go.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 24, 2021 8:32:58 GMT -6
uhh................  ? ? ? ? |
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Aug 24, 2021 8:38:49 GMT -6
If the poll question means financial investment, then the answer is very little. If the poll question means time investment, then the answer is hugely invested.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 24, 2021 8:50:40 GMT -6
For a few years, there have been conscious efforts to "cleanse" the scene of "undesirables" in much the same way other hobbies have been "cleansed". This is actually a big deal. Not because of me, personally (I got the treatment this year, and got through fairly OK), but about how you treat your fellow gamers, and the way you form claims, political or othrwise, on things that do not belong to you. I find this puzzling. Though I agree with the sentiment, I actually don’t recognize the conscious effort to “cleanse” the hobby. Could you elaborate in the most general of ways. When and why do you think this is the case? It happened to Bob Bledsaw jr. because he posted some rather odious political positions. It recently happened to WotC where they had to add a statement to their older products disavowing dated views because a small vocal group thought that D&D orcs reminded them of black people (  !!!??). If you follow the comics scene at all they are absolutely ruthless to cleanse anyone who doesn't adhere to a strict political position. It caused an eruption called Comicsgate a few years back, and it is still ongoing with a recent long time comic professional being tarred and feathered because he went on the wrong podcast to promote his new crowdfund comic. I think it is a reflection of where our society is at and growing intolerance and single minded obedience to a particular narrow set of views. Societies do this from time to time, a sort of mass psychosis takes over and madness ensues, to different levels of course but sometimes to quite extreme results. This recent video explains it pretty well: youtu.be/09maaUaRT4M |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 24, 2021 8:53:14 GMT -6
I the carefully rediscovered design lessons of old D&D seem to be lost again. From an appreciation of large dungeons (for instance), we have gone back to anemic little mini-lairs that are better illustrations than gameplay locales. From fantastic sword & sorcery or high fantasy gaming, we have gone back to late 2e conceptual weirdness, which might be fine on its own, but seems all airy-fairy without a solid grounding. From open-ended modes of play, we are going back to old and new forms of railroading. It is as if the whole spirit of old-school rediscovery has been inverted, or gone back to the point most of us wanted to leave behind. Thoughtful post Melan. But I would say that many of these things mentioned in what I quoted above WERE around in the old days. Railroading- Day one. Smaller adventure locations- Look to JG, who published large numbers of mini dungeons in various publications and products (and in other lines like DQ, RQ, etc). They had far more of these than they did large or mega-dungeons. Edit to add- Jacquays's early work in The Dungeoneer too. The current doom metal/punk/gonzo I think far eclipses the same for 2E when it comes to conceptual weirdness like Planescape, Spelljammer, Dark Sun. I think this gets back to the big issue with the various OSR "factions"- For some reason each faction wants to define, clarify and codify just what the OSR is and stands for. What is the definition of Old School play? But there is no one definition and these factions have a hard time accepting it. There is a huge difference in how the creators (Dave, Gary, MAR et al) ran and played their games, vs. the masses who bought it (I think Increment even wrote a book about it) Some people followed the rules and suggestions to a "T" and plugged along. Some people did their own thing. Some people thought D&D was a great inspiration, but a horrible rule-set and designed their own games. This was all going on as soon as the game hit the shelves. |
|
. 
? ? ? ?
!!!??).