|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 24, 2021 11:09:22 GMT -6
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. His facebook posts (multiple) was the straw that broke the camel's back but also there was his fumbling of the CSIO Kickstarter debacle after taking over from his son. Which included among other thing opening a webstore to sell physical copies of maps that the Kickstater project owed to its backers. And this was before I spoke to him and the other JG licensees about his facebook posts. As for the facebook past, the ones that I objected where racist and anti-Semitic not political. I knew about his right wing beliefs for years as I seen his post crop up on my facebook feed periodically. What didn't appear until Jan 2020 was the racist and anti-Semitic posts that were sprinkled throughout. Then when I searched his public posts, the ones anybody can see, I saw why because there were one or two of them for every dozen or so post on politics. So the odds were not good for them to crop especially I was an infrequent user of facebook and most of my feed was originated from family. So when I did the search, there are dozens of these posts stretching back years. And the content this post were not a little anti-Semitic or racist. They were filled with tropes that I read about from history like stuff from the Protocols of the Elder Zion and so on. So the situation for me was a little more clear cut than not liking somebody's political views. As for the ensuing events, I talked to RB2 privately first, and then the licensees, Goodman Games, and Frog God Games privately second, then it became public, then I made my public post about the matter. As far as I am concern Bob Bledsaw 2 dug his own grave on the matter. He had people actively trying to help him by either licensing usable IP, or pitching in directly (myself). Yet when it came to the CSIO itself, RB2 just would not get going on it. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 24, 2021 11:49:51 GMT -6
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… Jeff, granted, but have you read Foster’s Five things that needed saying piece from 2009? Especially the “Answer” to #3. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 24, 2021 12:19:23 GMT -6
I guess I'm part of the problem, according to that!  . I didn't run the game according to their rules! Nor did anyone else I played with in the Olden Days of Yore. Perhaps I should just resign myself to that fact I'm not worthy to be part of the OSR and run 5E from here on out? Oh whatforevershallIdo? /sarcasm K&K turned me off from the get-go (I have/had an account for years) and I quit vising many moons ago when it turned from revisiting the fun parts of the old days, to "our way or the highway". That is precisely the kind of Elitist Bull$h^t I have zero use for from ANY group and I'd be happy to see it go the way the dodo bird. I don't recall voting in these folks as Lords of the OSR, or swearing fealty to their cause, and I'm further glad I don't consider myself invested in the OSR. It's a game of make believe dragons and elves- some people need to get over themselves. Edit- to be clear, not directing my comments towards Falconer |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 24, 2021 13:11:29 GMT -6
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. So are we here in the OD&D Discussion a "faction"?  Having been here for quite some time, I would characterize the folks on this has sharing an interest in OD&D. But beyond that, well how many different grains of sands are there in a beach? Each of has our own interests and take on OD&D, the RPG hobby, and industry for those of us who participate. I submit, the OSR is exactly the same. Beyond an interest that ties back to one of the classic editions of D&D, the only thing a person can say about the OSR depend on who you are talking about. Myself? James Raggi? Kevin Crawford? Melan? Some folks share more than just a interest in the classic editions or a specific edition. They share similar tastes and styles as well in how to approach classic edition. Even then there is a lot of variations. Why is it this way? Fundamentally is a result of what gave birth to the OSR in the first place. The Internet and the D20 SRD. The internet allows efficient communication and easy distribution of material to support even the narrowest of niches. If you knew a handful of folks who like gonzo OD&D using only the 3 LBBs, you could get together, talk about what you like and maybe even grow the circle of folks who like that specific taste from there. Consider trying to do something that specific circa 1980. Now there is a critical mass beyond which a group will grow naturally because word of mouth creates more word of mouth and so on. But because it so easy for a niche of a niche to support itself, you get folks splintering off into their own thing all the time. And all too often the split is acrimonious as this group is well aware of. Next is the D20 SRD. Gonnerman, Marshall, and Finch all figured out that if you strip the D20 SRD of the newer mechanics the result is a hop and a skip away from any particular older edition. This allows people not only to talk, and meet about their interest but to share far more extensively, and publish as well. But the Internet and the development of Digital technology means that a little as a single individual has the means without putting a lot of capital, other than time, to realize their project in the form they like in the time they have for a hobby. Whether it just to share or to publish and sell. And like splinter groups mentioned above, this means folks are off doing their own thing all the time down to and including the individual lone author level. Overall this means for the most part, one can decide what it they want to do, and just go ahead and do it, and not be concerned how most folks in the hobby think. Often if you get a regular customer in the hundreds you can make a go of it. For sharing dozens will often suffice. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 24, 2021 13:44:11 GMT -6
Excuse me for butting in here, but Melan may be expressing the same grievance that Ernie Gygax has against Wizards of the Coast. Hmm, I guess that’s why I’m puzzled. It seemed Melan had something more specific in mind rather than the trend of cancel culture. It seems as if that behavior would be more impactful on publishers and designers than your run of the mill old school gaming crowd who is casually meeting and conversing online. I thought he was talking about places like this forum. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 24, 2021 13:59:56 GMT -6
I guess I'm part of the problem, according to that! . I didn't run the game according to their rules! Nor did anyone else I played with in the Olden Days of Yore. Perhaps I should just resign myself to that fact I'm not worthy to be part of the OSR and run 5E from here on out? Oh whatforevershallIdo? /sarcasm Huh? I’m just saying, no-one is pretending that railroading didn’t exist from day one. It did, and it came to predominate. But that doesn’t mean we can’t go back to the beginning and explore other “roads not taken.” Not sure how you get such a gatekeepey vibe from that. At the time they were just defending the reason for an old school movement to even exist, which was constantly under attack. |
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Aug 24, 2021 14:10:54 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 has been a fairly common and openly held sentiment in the Google Plus / social media "OSR" crowd that gamers who do not accept the woke credo should have no place in the hobby. In the more extreme cases, this goes with the implication that gaming will only be "safe" for "marginalised communities" once the undeserving have been removed from the community. ( captainjapan has made a good point here.) Gary, and the supposed "problematic" assumptions of D&D are themselves a target these days, and you can see that attacks on Ernie Gygax soon turned into attacks on his dad, and on old D&D in general. I do not wish to bring politics into this forum (it really does not belong, and has thankfully avoided this place), so I would prefer to leave it at that. I consider it a really sad state of affairs. 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. Certainly, a lot of it was there all along - immediately after 1974, people started using D&D for game styles which had little to do with the game's intended scope and style. I think Alarums&Excursions was chock full of experiments that went far from D&D (and some of them resulted in worthwhile, new game systems, of course). But I also agree with Falconer (and in turn, Trent) that old-school gaming as we know and like it is a reconstruction and exploration of a specific reading of old D&D. There are some approaches from the old days which were precursors to 1990s style game forms (which our games are naturally distinct from), some which were obsessed with detailed, realistic simulation (and we are not), and some which were just incoherent or dysfunctional.* These have little bearing on the games we run, although they may be relevant for others, and they are interesting historical documents to study. ____________ * JG absolutely published a lot of junk next to their greatest hits. Even so, even their mini-dungeons tend to be larger than what passes for dungeons these days, and they were understood to be materials you would scatter around a larger campaign. Many of the dungeons being released today are strings of 5-8 rooms. Things like dungeon exploration procedures, timekeeping, random encounters, and similar concerns cannot be applied to them. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 24, 2021 15:17:51 GMT -6
K&K turned me off from the get-go (I have/had an account for years) and I quit vising many moons ago when it turned from revisiting the fun parts of the old days, to "our way or the highway". I find that I like an ultra-strict super literal translation of the original source material as a base, or "cornerstone" from which to build all kinds of crazy interpretations of. I guess that is why I like the Single Volume Edition so much and then fun reinterpretations like Mazes and Minotaurs (what if? Greek mythology!) But then I haven't spent enough time on K&K to really get the vibe over there. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 24, 2021 15:24:54 GMT -6
So are we here in the OD&D Discussion a "faction"? I don't get that vibe here. I think there is a love for the original, and a curiosity and interest in a wide variety of other early stuff, and new stuff that feels like the early stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Aug 24, 2021 15:27:56 GMT -6
Certainly, a lot of it was there all along - immediately after 1974, people started using D&D for game styles which had little to do with the game's intended scope and style. I think Alarums&Excursions was chock full of experiments that went far from D&D (and some of them resulted in worthwhile, new game systems, of course). But I also agree with Falconer (and in turn, Trent) that old-school gaming as we know and like it is a reconstruction and exploration of a specific reading of old D&D. There are some approaches from the old days which were precursors to 1990s style game forms (which our games are naturally distinct from), some which were obsessed with detailed, realistic simulation (and we are not), and some which were just incoherent or dysfunctional.* These have little bearing on the games we run, although they may be relevant for others, and they are interesting historical documents to study. This is exactly the kind of BS "My way of playing is the One True Way and anything different is Fake D&D and doesn't belong in the OSR" that jeffb and many others are disgruntled with. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 24, 2021 15:28:10 GMT -6
ODD74 is kinda like this. The old stuff done with modern production values.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 24, 2021 15:32:55 GMT -6
Or maybe like this  |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 24, 2021 16:37:38 GMT -6
It has been a fairly common and openly held sentiment in the Google Plus / social media "OSR" crowd that gamers who do not accept the woke credo should have no place in the hobby. Thanks for the clarification. Weren't you a little suspect of G+ to begin with? I mean it seemed like that was part of what people were touting as a positive feature compared to places like this forum. Essentially people could form their own little closed groups that insulated them from those they wanted to exclude. Many forums have even largely moved in this direction, from an open format to a closed one. *I should note that I don't really participate on most social media. Never was interested in G+. Looked at it as counter productive to the health of the old school community. But I guess the times are a changin'. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 24, 2021 17:06:37 GMT -6
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. So are we here in the OD&D Discussion a "faction"? I'm afraid I don't get the movie reference/meme, but tdenmark did a fine job of saying what I would when he answered your question. Of course we all "align" with certain elements of OSR play- but we have people here who play a wide variety of games in addition to whatever flavor of O/TSR and we discuss them- often learning something about the new and the old in the process. That is the beauty of this place in particular. There is a great deal of insightful informative discussion between people who have varied opinions and experiences. No echo chamber. Sure, someone may prefer their way/game over others, but we all respect each other's styles and viewpoints even if we do not particularly enjoy them, understand them, or agree with them. We've got people who are playing straight LBB, we have a gazillion houseruled retrocloners, we have people who hack everything, we have people who really like and play 5E, or DCCRPG, or Holmes. We have several people like yourself who have published some pretty well thought of commercial products also- Jason V. Thomas. Marv, Vile, Ways, and several others. We actually have a really diverse group here- with a common love of the roots of the games. I may not agree with everyone at a base level, and you may not with me, but I could sit down with each and every one of you at your table and play your game, and we'd have a blast. I mean that. I'm not into badwrongfun, and I like variety. I've played exactly BTB, and I've played with NO book and no dice and everything inbetween. Just don't ask me to map. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2021 17:16:49 GMT -6
Please do ask me to map, though. I will get us all hopelessly lost in a memorable fashion.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 24, 2021 17:26:38 GMT -6
I guess I'm part of the problem, according to that! . I didn't run the game according to their rules! Nor did anyone else I played with in the Olden Days of Yore. Perhaps I should just resign myself to that fact I'm not worthy to be part of the OSR and run 5E from here on out? Oh whatforevershallIdo? /sarcasm Huh? I’m just saying, no-one is pretending that railroading didn’t exist from day one. It did, and it came to predominate. But that doesn’t mean we can’t go back to the beginning and explore other “roads not taken.” Not sure how you get such a gatekeepey vibe from that. At the time they were just defending the reason for an old school movement to even exist, which was constantly under attack. I don't know the context of the thread. If they are speaking of justifying the existence of the OSR movement, then my point stands. I'm sorry, who decided what OS elements are good and what OS elements are bad for the rest of us? Who are "we"? What is "crap"? It sounds like a bunch of 5 year old boys who don't want stinky girls in their clubhouse. Gross. Cooties. I'm all about "Play the game your way"- But just cos you (general "you") don't like certain elements of old school and choose to exclude them and the people who do play that way/like those elements, doesn't make your favorite bits any more legit. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 24, 2021 17:31:35 GMT -6
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 has been a fairly common and openly held sentiment in the Google Plus / social media "OSR" crowd that gamers who do not accept the woke credo should have no place in the hobby. In the more extreme cases, this goes with the implication that gaming will only be "safe" for "marginalised communities" once the undeserving have been removed from the community. ( captainjapan has made a good point here.) Gary, and the supposed "problematic" assumptions of D&D are themselves a target these days, and you can see that attacks on Ernie Gygax soon turned into attacks on his dad, and on old D&D in general. I do not wish to bring politics into this forum (it really does not belong, and has thankfully avoided this place), so I would prefer to leave it at that. I consider it a really sad state of affairs. 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. Certainly, a lot of it was there all along - immediately after 1974, people started using D&D for game styles which had little to do with the game's intended scope and style. I think Alarums&Excursions was chock full of experiments that went far from D&D (and some of them resulted in worthwhile, new game systems, of course). But I also agree with Falconer (and in turn, Trent) that old-school gaming as we know and like it is a reconstruction and exploration of a specific reading of old D&D. There are some approaches from the old days which were precursors to 1990s style game forms (which our games are naturally distinct from), some which were obsessed with detailed, realistic simulation (and we are not), and some which were just incoherent or dysfunctional.* These have little bearing on the games we run, although they may be relevant for others, and they are interesting historical documents to study. ____________ * JG absolutely published a lot of junk next to their greatest hits. Even so, even their mini-dungeons tend to be larger than what passes for dungeons these days, and they were understood to be materials you would scatter around a larger campaign. Many of the dungeons being released today are strings of 5-8 rooms. Things like dungeon exploration procedures, timekeeping, random encounters, and similar concerns cannot be applied to them. As I've stated before- You ("general you") play your game, your way, I'm good with that. But I'm with Desparil here. Who exactly got to choose for all of us which "specific reading" is the proper one for the OSR movement? Why wasn't I consulted?* * That's a joke |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Aug 24, 2021 18:48:37 GMT -6
What I don't get is why folks don't realize it doesn't matter what the others think of you. I guess if one wants to be next Wizards or Paizo, I get why that a concern. But as far is doing what you like in the form you like doing in this we are in a post-scarcity environment as far as the RPG hobby does. Hell even geographical separation can be overcome now with VTTs. This forum is partial proof of that. Can you imagine a bunch of hobbyists who like OD&D getting together and sharing in 1985 as we could in 2015?
Sure I participated and contributed to my share of debates over the nature of the OSR, what it means, etc. I have my opinions about what ought to be. But I also realize at the end of the day. I can sit down and type more chapters to my Manual of Puissant Skill my next MW RPG volume, add more to my Majestic Fantasy Realms, and so on. I respect the fact those I talk with or debate can do the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Aug 24, 2021 19:06:08 GMT -6
What I don't get is why folks don't realize it doesn't matter what the others think of you. I guess if one wants to be next Wizards or Paizo, I get why that a concern. But as far is doing what you like in the form you like doing in this we are in a post-scarcity environment as far as the RPG hobby does. Hell even geographical separation can be overcome now with VTTs. This forum is partial proof of that. Can you imagine a bunch of hobbyists who like OD&D getting together and sharing in 1985 as we could in 2015? Sure I participated and contributed to my share of debates over the nature of the OSR, what it means, etc. I have my opinions about what ought to be. But I also realize at the end of the day. I can sit down and type more chapters to my Manual of Puissant Skill my next MW RPG volume, add more to my Majestic Fantasy Realms, and so on. I respect the fact those I talk with or debate can do the same. In general I don't think we do care much what others think when it's in the abstract, out of sight, out of mind. But when they march into your virtual living room and start threadcrapping with denigrating statements about the people sitting here - with a side of off-topic whining about cancel culture - then it's a much more concrete and present irritant compared to whatever they're writing on their blogs or Twitters. |
|
|
|
Post by mrmanowar on Aug 24, 2021 19:08:48 GMT -6
Since the OP was about investment, I agree with some earlier posts if that's broken down into time and money. Gaming in that style fits into time. Painting with a broad general brush, I do spend both money and time on games and products that lean towards OSR if that means replicating a play style, replicating a system, or more to the point for me: playing a system I've already owned for decades and getting enjoyment out of it. I've also backed some KS's that could be OSR depending on how one wants to define that.
A parallel I would like to offer is this: I like heavy metal music. I'm a metalhead. With a name like Mr. Manowar that should give it away. Well, in metal soon general labels occurred like: black, death, doom, power, progressive, thrash, etc. Pretty soon the advertising kept coming up with more and more adjectives as a way to distinguish one band from another. I think the OSR is kinda the same way. It all broadly fits under one category (role playing games) but a niche or some kind of special designation has to be added. I like a lot (but not all) subgenres of metal. The same applies for RPG's. However, I don't feel the need to badmouth the stuff I don't like. I'd rather be supportive to the creators who make stuff I like and vote with my dollars so they get paid. I'll leave the pontificating and label qualifiers who have more time than me to add those bits to the conversation. When it comes to OSR, or whatever you like... where do you spend your time? Your money? Again, following the metal metaphor, you going to see a metal band or a techno TikTok star? I like what I like, support what I support but feel no need to have to weigh in on definitions/categories but since there is some overlap in what I buy and play, here's my bits of commentary.
Play what you like, buy what you like, just understand we all don't like the same likes and have different investment in said likes. Yikes, I think I said "like/likes" more than my teenage daughter. Oops!
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 24, 2021 22:15:44 GMT -6
Right, well, throughout the 3e years, older editions of D&D were loudly mocked by 3e players, with great arrogance and specificity. By the 4e years, there were plenty of people burned out on 3e but nonplussed by 4e. Emboldened by this, and armed with substantial talking points about the benefits of older editions (articulated over a the course of a decade at Knights & Knaves and other places), we began touting them with renewed zeal. But this was still in many circles met with incredulity and the sort of non-sequitur arguments that Foster addresses in the post. If they are speaking of justifying the existence of the OSR movement, then my point stands. Defending old school D&D IS “Play the game your way”, not anti it. The point is that old school D&D is just as valid a way to play as 3e and 4e. Who are "we"? What is "crap"? Heh, well, the “we” of the post is Knights & Knaves. K&K members are not monolithic, but they accept the premise that the board is devoted to the specifics of Gygaxian D&D gaming style and aesthetics, and as such go into great detail about what made Gygax’s work great and, by juxtaposition, everything in D&D in the late 80s and 90s slide into a mass of mediocrity. It’s not really about wanting to score points in some kind of edition war; the edition wars are all outside. It’s really about a pursuit of excellence, with a certain style taken for granted as the baseline there, with the goal of fueling excellent creative work. That said, if you are on the outside, and not really interested in that style, it may just come across as “mean”! |
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Aug 25, 2021 0:21:07 GMT -6
Certainly, a lot of it was there all along - immediately after 1974, people started using D&D for game styles which had little to do with the game's intended scope and style. I think Alarums&Excursions was chock full of experiments that went far from D&D (and some of them resulted in worthwhile, new game systems, of course). But I also agree with Falconer (and in turn, Trent) that old-school gaming as we know and like it is a reconstruction and exploration of a specific reading of old D&D. There are some approaches from the old days which were precursors to 1990s style game forms (which our games are naturally distinct from), some which were obsessed with detailed, realistic simulation (and we are not), and some which were just incoherent or dysfunctional.* These have little bearing on the games we run, although they may be relevant for others, and they are interesting historical documents to study. This is exactly the kind of BS "My way of playing is the One True Way and anything different is Fake D&D and doesn't belong in the OSR" that jeffb and many others are disgruntled with. Without boundaries and focus, games become formless, becoming the proverbial "jack of all trades, master of none". - Adding a spell point system to D&D does not make it Fake D&D (it is a popular house rule), but it does remove the advantages of the spell memorisation system and heavily affects game balance.
- Making the combat system "more realistic" does not make your game Fake D&D, but it may fundamentally change the dynamic of encounters, and thus exploration.
- Adding a percentile-based skill system does not make your game Fake D&D, but it does add a significant layer of problem solving and interaction to the campaign that players will rely on.
- Doing all of these things in combination makes your D&D into "RuneQuest", a fine game on its own. But not D&D anymore.
Embracing some limitations and particular design choices is what makes games coherent, distinct, and interesting. So yes, some gatekeeping is cool and good. Not everything can be D&D, let alone old-school D&D, even though it is a broad tent. We can debate endlessly where the boundaries lie, but in some form, they do exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Aug 25, 2021 0:26:05 GMT -6
It has been a fairly common and openly held sentiment in the Google Plus / social media "OSR" crowd that gamers who do not accept the woke credo should have no place in the hobby. Thanks for the clarification. Weren't you a little suspect of G+ to begin with? I mean it seemed like that was part of what people were touting as a positive feature compared to places like this forum. Essentially people could form their own little closed groups that insulated them from those they wanted to exclude. Many forums have even largely moved in this direction, from an open format to a closed one. Yeah, I was a little suspicious. I should have been very suspicious, and should have been so when Google first parked its "Free Candy! 1 Gigabyte of Mail Storage! FREE!* (*Some terms and conditions apply") van in the neighbourhood. Social media is really bad for us as a species; it brings out our worst instincts. Forums remain the best communication platform for discussing games. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 25, 2021 1:05:48 GMT -6
Thanks for the clarification. Weren't you a little suspect of G+ to begin with? I mean it seemed like that was part of what people were touting as a positive feature compared to places like this forum. Essentially people could form their own little closed groups that insulated them from those they wanted to exclude. Many forums have even largely moved in this direction, from an open format to a closed one. Yeah, I was a little suspicious. I should have been very suspicious, and should have been so when Google first parked its "Free Candy! 1 Gigabyte of Mail Storage! FREE!* (*Some terms and conditions apply") van in the neighbourhood. Social media is really bad for us as a species; it brings out our worst instincts. Forums remain the best communication platform for discussing games. It is like G+ was made for the gaming community, and OSR in particular. Then Google pulled the rug out from underneath us. Like they've done with so many products. I still haven't fully recovered from losing G+ or Google Reader, they were my goto platforms for years. It kept my internet surfing manageable. Now it seems like chaos. |
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Aug 25, 2021 1:32:45 GMT -6
They also own Blogger / Blogspot, which means they can pretty much destroy much of the blogosphere if they want to. Also, the Usenet archives, largely forgotten now, but priceless from a historical perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Aug 25, 2021 3:11:54 GMT -6
It is like G+ was made for the gaming community, and OSR in particular. Then Google pulled the rug out from underneath us. Like they've done with so many products. I still haven't fully recovered from losing G+ or Google Reader, they were my goto platforms for years. It kept my internet surfing manageable. Now it seems like chaos. It's an interesting list: killedbygoogle.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 25, 2021 6:31:09 GMT -6
They also own Blogger / Blogspot, which means they can pretty much destroy much of the blogosphere if they want to. Also, the Usenet archives, largely forgotten now, but priceless from a historical perspective. Whenever there is a long period with no development, such as with Blogger for years they did no updates or changes to it as far as I could tell on the front end. Then about a year ago they started messing with it, clearly it had a new development staff working on it. They messed up a lot of things and made it worse, with very little improvements. I think it had to do with the updated Google Sites, which used to be terrible and then they made it really good. I'm hosting nightowlworkshop.com on it. At least knowing they have staff working on blogger means it still has some value to them. I hope they don't cut it off, I subscribe to a lot of old-school blogs. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 25, 2021 8:03:27 GMT -6
Right, well, throughout the 3e years, older editions of D&D were loudly mocked by 3e players, with great arrogance and specificity. By the 4e years, there were plenty of people burned out on 3e but nonplussed by 4e. Emboldened by this, and armed with substantial talking points about the benefits of older editions (articulated over a the course of a decade at Knights & Knaves and other places), we began touting them with renewed zeal. But this was still in many circles met with incredulity and the sort of non-sequitur arguments that Foster addresses in the post. If they are speaking of justifying the existence of the OSR movement, then my point stands. Defending old school D&D IS “Play the game your way”, not anti it. The point is that old school D&D is just as valid a way to play as 3e and 4e. Who are "we"? What is "crap"? Heh, well, the “we” of the post is Knights & Knaves. K&K members are not monolithic, but they accept the premise that the board is devoted to the specifics of Gygaxian D&D gaming style and aesthetics, and as such go into great detail about what made Gygax’s work great and, by juxtaposition, everything in D&D in the late 80s and 90s slide into a mass of mediocrity. It’s not really about wanting to score points in some kind of edition war; the edition wars are all outside. It’s really about a pursuit of excellence, with a certain style taken for granted as the baseline there, with the goal of fueling excellent creative work. That said, if you are on the outside, and not really interested in that style, it may just come across as “mean”! I'm well aware of all the history behind Df K&K and "the movement" vs. new school. I was there. It seems to me then that they are making up a set of rules or guidelines for their forum. And that is fine, But then I don't see how this applies to anywhere else and why you brought up their post? K&K doesn't also get to decide which bits of old school 197x D&D are good for everyone else involved in old school play. |
|
|
|
Post by scottenkainen on Aug 25, 2021 10:02:59 GMT -6
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 (  !!!??). Could you be referring to module X8 Drums on Fire Mountain, which did specifically take every trope of adventure genre fiction usually assigned to natives of color and transferred them onto orcs? 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. That's not a very good description of Comicsgate. If anyone wants to discuss Comicsgate, this is not the forum for it, but feel free to message me privately if you want to discuss it. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Aug 25, 2021 10:37:07 GMT -6
K&K doesn't also get to decide which bits of old school 197x D&D are good for everyone else involved in old school play. No-one is even remotely doing that. I’m not sure why you keep up this slander no matter how many times it is denied. Anyone can make value judgments; it has nothing to do with “deciding for everyone else.” This is the internet; people are going to express opinions; there doesn’t need to be a disclaimer every five seconds. For example, when I compared Vornheim unfavorably to CSIO, I tried to be thoughtful and specific about ways in which CSIO is more playable. I think there is value and enjoyment in such a post, and it leads to better play. But it’s understood that “YMMV.” The other area where we seem to disagree is that I see old school D&D as, indeed, a school, and that means that has been and continues to be delineated and philosophized and juxtaposed and articulated in a certain way. This activity can be done by anyone who is interested in doing so. You can ignore this if you are not interested, but that doesn’t mean “old school” can mean whatever you want it to mean. It’s not synonymous with “old.” |
|
. I didn't run the game according to their rules! Nor did anyone else I played with in the Olden Days of Yore. Perhaps I should just resign myself to that fact I'm not worthy to be part of the OSR and run 5E from here on out? Oh whatforevershallIdo?
!!!??).