How much Investment do you have in today's OSR scene?

[scottenkainen]

>I'm a metalhead. With a name like Mr. Manowar that should give it away.

I had no idea that was a band. I just thought you liked alliteration. Or jellyfish.

[tdenmark]

This thread is getting unexpectedly heated.

[jeffb]

Aug 25, 2021 10:37:07 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Aug 25, 2021 8:03:27 GMT -6 jeffb said:

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.”

So to be clear- you believe that thread you posted, those numbers points that K&K suggest- defines the OSR in whole, and not just for K&K? Yes or No?

Also, to address your second paragraph- I specifically quoted the part from K&K that said even if it existed in the 70s, there are elements are not old school according to them- I'm slandering no one. I'm simply reacting to EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID. THEY are the ones who choose to ignore it willfully and purposefully to suit their agenda. I'm calling BS.


You go to school to learn how to think for yourself, not to be told what to think.

[tdenmark]

Aug 25, 2021 10:02:59 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

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?

I'll have to look into that more. I was referring to how every older WotC product on DriveThru has a disclaimer.

Aug 25, 2021 10:02:59 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

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.

I know a little about CG, however I'm no expert as I only peripherally follow comics. But please, do enlighten me by PM.

[thegreyelf]

Aug 25, 2021 10:58:00 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

This thread is getting unexpectedly heated.

Hah. I saw it coming 2 pages ago the moment someone used the phrase, "concerted efforts to remove undesirables." Heated was inevitable from that point. I'm just amazed it hasn't gone full-bore flame war by now.

[tombowings]

Aug 25, 2021 10:02:59 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

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?

Let's not dive into a discussion where one side of the issue cannot be argued for without breaking the board rules. It's poor sport to pick on ideas who aren't allowed to defend themselves. We here are better than that.

[jeffb]

Aug 25, 2021 10:58:00 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

This thread is getting unexpectedly heated.

That's likely my fault. For some reason the "extreme" on both sides of the OSR have been really vocal lately on various forums and MeWE, and both seem to want exclude everyone outside their own narrow definitions and further segregate things. It's absolutely ridiculous (that's a nice way of me saying it, I don't want to offend anyone's Grandma on here).

[Falconer]

Aug 25, 2021 11:03:52 GMT -6 jeffb said:

So to be clear- you believe that thread you posted, those numbers points that K&K suggest- defines the OSR in whole, and not just for K&K? Yes or No?

I think the post makes some useful definitions and valid assertions which address some of your concerns.

Aug 25, 2021 11:03:52 GMT -6 jeffb said:

I specifically quoted the part from K&K that said even if it existed in the 70s, there are elements are not old school according to them

Yes, exactly, old is not synonymous with old school. Old school means specific elements which had largely fallen out of fashion and use in 90s-00s D&D. Railroading was very common in the 90s-00s, therefore it is not anything unique to old D&D, therefore it’s not part of old school.

Aug 25, 2021 11:03:52 GMT -6 jeffb said:

You go to school to learn how to think for yourself, not to be told what to think.

Do you understand “school” in old school to be the “an institution for educating children” definition? I take it more in the manner of “a group of people, particularly writers, artists, or philosophers, sharing the same or similar ideas, methods, or style.”

[tdenmark]

Aug 25, 2021 11:47:20 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Aug 25, 2021 10:02:59 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

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?

Let's not dive into a discussion where one side of the issue cannot be argued for without breaking the board rules. It's poor sport to pick on ideas who aren't allowed to defend themselves. We here are better than that.

Yeah, I went back and read the module. Then looked up several reviews. It is a very, very small vocal minority that expressed an issue with it.

I look at it like this. If you are trying to make unique and interesting orcs and differentiate them you can't invent out of whole cloth you do what all writers and creatives do. You look around at the real world and borrow elements. After reading it I don't think Graeme Morris and Tom Kirby meant to be offensive in any way whatsoever. And the concept of "cultural appropriation" wasn't even a known term in 1985.

Normally what you'd do is take more than one culture or source and blend them with your own ideas to create something new and interesting with depth. At worst, perhaps due to time, deadlines, word count space, or whatever they didn't broaden the depth of the orcs as much as they could have.

That is as far as I'll go with this discussion.

[jeffb]

Falconer said:

I think the post makes some useful definitions and valid assertions which address some of your concerns.

Who put them in charge of the definitions? And to be clear, I'm not "concerned", I'm just bewildered that anyone would have the audacity to make such claims. I'm also trying to establish that it is indeed meant to be a set of bylaws for the OSR movement, and not just for their own community. And it seems I cannot get a straight answer on this.

Falconer said:

Yes, exactly, old is not synonymous with old school. Old school means specific elements which had largely fallen out of fashion and use in 90s-00s D&D. Railroading was very common in the 90s-00s, therefore it is not anything unique to old D&D, therefore it’s not part of old school.

Who chose them to define to the rest of the OSR what elements are "old school" rather than just "old" and undesirable (in their opinion) ? (this has nothing specific to do with railroading, I mean just in the general sense)

Falconer said:

Do you understand “school” in old school to be the “an institution for educating children” definition? I take it more in the manner of “a group of people, particularly writers, artists, or philosophers, sharing the same or similar ideas, methods, or style.”

I understand both it's uses. However based on what I see in the linked thread, Thosr folks seems to have appointed themselves as the Teachers, and are laying out the lesson plan for all the children- cherrypicking the history bits they deem acceptable as "old school", and ignoring the history bits they don't and accusing any dissenters as "part of the problem"

As I said previously, that's fine if it's their style, the type of content and the type of folks they want on their private community I'm simply saying they didn't create the OSR, don't own it, and don't get to decide for everyone else what is and isn't "legit' based on personal feelings.

I've made myself clear I think at this point.

[robertsconley]

Aug 25, 2021 11:03:52 GMT -6 jeffb said:

Also, to address your second paragraph- I specifically quoted the part from K&K that said even if it existed in the 70s, there are elements are not old school according to them- I'm slandering no one. I'm simply reacting to EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID. THEY are the ones who choose to ignore it willfully and purposefully to suit their agenda. I'm calling BS.

We all have creative agendas, I am known for being the guy who like sandbox campaign and who let's players trash his setting for example. And what I publish reflect that. I focus and talk a lot about things that suit my creative agenda. It not the only thing I ever talk about when it comes the hobby but it is a large portion of it.

The individuals at K&K all have their own creative agendas and they share a lot of overlap hence the existence of the forum. Individually and as the group they ignore and focus on things that suit their agendas. I don't see having a creative agenda or tailoring things to suit as being an issue.

You do bring up something relevant that Trent talked about, "what is and isn't old school". My experience is that I want to put out a thesis in his hobby talking about what old school never ends well. Rolling a d6, you would have to roll a 6 otherwise the conversation will devolve into a debate about what is and isn't old school along with folks getting annoyed, upset, etc. The sentiments expressed in your post are exactly what I would expect when something trying to talk about what old school.

But, when it comes to me it doesn't matter. No matter how annoying it is. Why? Because none of has the power to stop or hinder what any of us do creatively. When I do speak up, it about some other negative behavior that accompanies the assertions of what is old school and what is not. For example, participating on a forum and derailing every topic whenever old school is mention even if it is in passing. In which case I rather focus on the derailing of topics as that is more serious issue causing problems.

As for Trent, K&KA, and the post in question, keep in mine they largely keep to themselves and work on their own project. They will listen and discuss if you have something relevant to their interests. If you don't or try to call bullshirt, then most of the folks I know there will either ignore you, sling it back just as hard, or just shut down the conversation on the forum.

I say this knowing that half the things I do wouldn't be considered school under Trent's post. That my use of stuff like an ability system (skills) is on the slippery slope to the stuff that occurred in the 90s and 2000s. Personally I find a lot of their discussion useful and food for the creative fodder. I don't use much of it directly but it helps in deciding how to approach various aspect of my campaign and work to keep it compatible with OD&D and the other classic edition, yet still do what I want it to do.

More issues arise from folks who discovered AD&D for themselves recently and not aware of how ground was trodden already on its strengths and weaknesses. Rather than the hard core hobbyist fans.

[robertsconley]

Aug 25, 2021 13:06:22 GMT -6 jeffb said:

Falconer said:

I think the post makes some useful definitions and valid assertions which address some of your concerns.

Who put them in charge of the definitions? And to be clear, I'm not "concerned", I'm just bewildered that anyone would have the audacity to make such claims. I'm also trying to establish that it is indeed meant to be a set of bylaws for the OSR movement, and not just for their own community. And it seems I cannot get a straight answer on this.

The answer is that this
www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35*

is licensed with this

media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf

which mean at any time if somebody gets too puffed up, one can say go to hell. Add in the internet, digital technology, VTTs, and print on demand. There is literally there no power to be had or grabbed.

That is about as straight an answer I can give. OSR is what creative freedom look like, a kaleidoscope that is joyous, and messy all at the same time. Nobody owns the OSR, everybody owns the OSR.


*Yeah, Rob isn't that D&D 3.5? It is but if you look and omit all the newer mechanics like feats, etc, what you have left is a hop and a skip from a particular classic edition. Add some elbow grease, you have enough to do whatever most of what you want with a particular edition. Now that we are 15 years in, the elbow grease is optional as most of the work has been done and is open content in of itself.

[Deleted]

One of the things I like about K&KA is that this thread would in no way qualify as heated over there. Sometimes this place is so polite it inhibits meaningful discussion. (Full disclosure: I'm a lawyer; so, my conception of what politeness requires may be somewhat impoverished.)

I don't think K&KA's focus on what makes D&D Gygaxian, or old school, is about patrolling the OSR and ensuring that everyone toes the line. In my experience, most K&KAers could not care less about the OSR by and large. When we bag on it (and we do with some regularity), it is as a group that all more or less agree in broad outline; it's an in-group discussion essentially, not a scolding directed at those who disagree with us.

K&KA's focus on what makes D&D Gygaxian, or old school, or however you want to term it, is more about expressing what it is about the versions of D&D we prefer that make them preferable to us. It helps us explain those preferences to others, bring in players who share them, and defend them in the sense of presenting our preferences as a well-thought-out style of play rather than the caricature of older versions that gets bandied about.

The main benefit of defining our style of play is to get more of it in our own games and in products. A lot of people know what kind of game they like on an intuitive level. They know it when they see it. But if you don't think about it any deeper than that, whether you actually end up with it in what you write or run can be a matter of luck or accident. By defining what makes our preferred D&D, we can better achieve it in play.

For example, Melan's comments about larger dungeons versus smaller dungeons. When I first read his article (the one I'm always going on about around here), it made concrete something that I had not consciously thought about. I think this is what a lot of the "this is what proper old-school D&D consists of" talk is really about: taking implicit aspects of the game and making them explicit so that we can replicate them in our own games.

[jeffb]

robertsconley

Thanks for the insight- the only reason K&K came up is because it was brought into the discussion as some sort of list of bullet points about what the OSR is/should be. Otherwise, I'm guessing this thread would be at the bottom of the page again. If it's simply the creative agenda for their community and product output- awesome, I hope they make a ton of cash with it.


And thanks for the "definitions" clarification- I'm looking forward to the KS for the BIG OSR BOOK OF EPIC PSIONIC FEATS, PRESTIGE CLASSES, and DIVINE MINIONS (maybe some K&K folk are working on it right now?)

[tdenmark]

Aug 25, 2021 13:13:07 GMT -6 robertsconley said:

Aug 25, 2021 11:03:52 GMT -6 jeffb said:

Also, to address your second paragraph- I specifically quoted the part from K&K that said even if it existed in the 70s, there are elements are not old school according to them- I'm slandering no one. I'm simply reacting to EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID. THEY are the ones who choose to ignore it willfully and purposefully to suit their agenda. I'm calling BS.

We all have creative agendas

Early on I once tried to define OSR on my blog because I was getting so confused what it was (or wasn't), so I wrote an "OSR Manifesto" and tried to define it as anything remotely compatible with OD&D.

Boy, I never made that mistake again.

OSR is whatever you want it to be my friend. You have your OSR, I'll have mine.

thankyouverymuch

[robertsconley]

Aug 25, 2021 13:38:33 GMT -6 jeffb said:

robertsconley

Thanks for the insight- the only reason K&K came up is because it was brought into the discussion as some sort of list of bullet points about what the OSR is/should be.

Sure thing. I will say that the OSR as it currently stands is hard to wrap for many to wrap their heads around. Because it flies against how things were done in the past. Not just in the RPG world, but how creative stuff and business are handled in general.

For example IP is owned by various folks in the OSR, like I own Blackmarsh, but there is so much sharing of open content that there are things to be had ranging from complete systems to complete settings.

That the barriers are so low for playing, promotion, sharing or publishing it boils down to are you willing to put the time to X, and do you have the interest to do X.

And it rare that something like this touches on the most popular IP in the hobby, Dungeons & Dragons. In the world of computers you have Linux but it own things and not like Windows or the Mac Operating System.

So people keep looking for the man behind the curtain. The answer that simplifies and explain everything about the OSR. My goal when it comes to these type of discussions is to pull back the curtain to reveal a mirror and show that it is you along with everybody else.

Aug 25, 2021 13:38:33 GMT -6 jeffb said:

Otherwise, I'm guessing this thread would be at the bottom of the page again. If it's simply the creative agenda for their community and product output- awesome, I hope they make a ton of cash with it.

Well there are folks willing to self-label their works as OSRIC on DriveThruRPG. Sure probably not everything on that list is truly OSRIC/AD&D related but even if you cull it, it is still a heck of a lot of stuff for something that went out of print in the mid 80s. And the there is the sharing that goes on like the list of stuff over on Dragonsfoot.

www.drivethrurpg.com/browse.php?filters=10094_0_0_0_0&src=fid10094

Aug 25, 2021 13:38:33 GMT -6 jeffb said:

And thanks for the "definitions" clarification- I'm looking forward to the KS for the BIG OSR BOOK OF EPIC PSIONIC FEATS, PRESTIGE CLASSES, and DIVINE MINIONS (maybe some K&K folk are working on it right now?)

Actually it is Dangerous Dungeons. Kellri is the lead on that, while development is slow, what been released is pretty slick.
www.knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewforum.php?f=50

[robertsconley]

Aug 25, 2021 13:43:56 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Aug 25, 2021 13:13:07 GMT -6 robertsconley said:

We all have creative agendas

Early on I once tried to define OSR on my blog because I was getting so confused what it was (or wasn't), so I wrote an "OSR Manifesto" and tried to define it as anything remotely compatible with OD&D.

Boy, I never made that mistake again.

OSR is whatever you want it to be my friend. You have your OSR, I'll have mine.

thankyouverymuch

Yeah I hear you. However I still stand by this from 2009
batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/07/old-school-renaissance.html

To me the Old School Renaissance is not about playing a particular set of rules in a particular way, the dungeon crawl. It is about going back to the roots of our hobby and seeing what we could do differently. What avenues were not explored because of the commercial and personal interests of the game designers of the time.

[tdenmark]

Aug 25, 2021 14:15:49 GMT -6 robertsconley said:

To me the Old School Renaissance is not about playing a particular set of rules in a particular way, the dungeon crawl. It is about going back to the roots of our hobby and seeing what we could do differently. What avenues were not explored because of the commercial and personal interests of the game designers of the time.

See, to me this is not the OSR. This is an interesting aspect, one slice of the OSR pie, one I indulge in a lot, but it is not the OSR.

But my opinion doesn't matter. That is OSR to you, and that is what matters.

[Falconer]

Aug 25, 2021 13:06:22 GMT -6 jeffb said:

Who put them in charge of the definitions?

I’m sorry, I’m still not clear why you keep asking this. Many people, including in this thread, have tried to define things; it has nothing to do with having been put in charge of definitions.

Aug 25, 2021 13:06:22 GMT -6 jeffb said:

I'm also trying to establish that it is indeed meant to be a set of bylaws for the OSR movement, and not just for their own community. And it seems I cannot get a straight answer on this.

I’m sorry, man, I never meant to post the link as an appeal to authority. I never said it was the be-all-end-all. It’s just a forum post, that someone once made, where he makes some good points, that I thought would help clarify your thinking on some matters. I just said, “Hey, have you ever read this?” I didn’t anticipate such a negative reaction. I don’t understand where you are coming from with all this. I don’t understand why you are so preoccupied with WHO made the post, or WHY I linked to it, when as far as I can tell the post itself is coherent and self-explanatory. Obviously there is some larger context at play here making us look at things in a completely different light, since we have always gotten along just fine, as far as I can remember.

[Falconer]

Aug 25, 2021 14:15:49 GMT -6 robertsconley said:

To me the Old School Renaissance is not about playing a particular set of rules in a particular way, the dungeon crawl. It is about going back to the roots of our hobby and seeing what we could do differently. What avenues were not explored because of the commercial and personal interests of the game designers of the time.

Agree with this definition 100%.

[jeffb]

Aug 25, 2021 14:58:00 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Aug 25, 2021 13:06:22 GMT -6 jeffb said:

Who put them in charge of the definitions?

I’m sorry, I’m still not clear why you keep asking this. Many people, including in this thread, have tried to define things; it has nothing to do with having been put in charge of definitions.

Aug 25, 2021 13:06:22 GMT -6 jeffb said:

I'm also trying to establish that it is indeed meant to be a set of bylaws for the OSR movement, and not just for their own community. And it seems I cannot get a straight answer on this.

I’m sorry, man, I never meant to post the link as an appeal to authority. I never said it was the be-all-end-all. It’s just a forum post, that someone once made, where he makes some good points, that I thought would help clarify your thinking on some matters. I just said, “Hey, have you ever read this?” I didn’t anticipate such a negative reaction. I don’t understand where you are coming from with all this. I don’t understand why you are so preoccupied with WHO made the post, or WHY I linked to it, when as far as I can tell the post itself is coherent and self-explanatory. Obviously there is some larger context at play here making us look at things in a completely different light, since we have always gotten along just fine, as far as I can remember.

And I'll still get long fine with you! For me- this discussion is like my buddies and I arguing about Chevy vs. Ford. vs. Mopar. We can really get into it on the minute details of models and engines and best years, disagree about everything, tell each other they have no clue what they are talking about, get feathers ruffled, etc. but at the end of the day we are friends and it's opinions are like Aholes. That goes for everyone here. Maybe @dungeonmonkey has a point about the politeness here, but it's not my board so I go with the flow of wherever I'm posting.


as for context- When replying to Melan about things being part of the game from day one it hit the shelves, your linked post struck me as "Sorry Jeff, just because some of these playstyles and tropes were born in the earliest days of the hobby, doesn't make them OK as far as the OSR is concerned-see this post here on the KKA for the approved list of what is acceptable". Which is really what the linked post is- a list of the acceptable things/people/playstyles (according to them). I'm not sure how else I was supposed to take it, with the way it was given, so to speak.

[Falconer]

No worries, man. Agree to disagree! Mistakes were made!

[tkdco2]

So if for some folks OSR is about trying to experience how Gary and Dave played the game while clarifying some of the rules, did they OSR miss the mark?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFoTj1sxFQ8

While I enjoy the channel, I don't quite agree with the author's premise. OSR games have a specific edition in mind, and the authors try to reproduce the rulesets in a more cohesive manner. Some do have their share of house rules built into their systems, however.

[waysoftheearth]

Aug 27, 2021 0:03:03 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

So if for some folks OSR is about trying to experience how Gary and Dave played the game while clarifying some of the rules, did they OSR miss the mark?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFoTj1sxFQ8

While I enjoy the channel, I don't quite agree with the author's premise. OSR games have a specific edition in mind, and the authors try to reproduce the rulesets in a more cohesive manner. Some do have their share of house rules built into their systems, however.

Nice link. One could quibble about "Overland Survival" or that DBA 3 was published in 2014 (DBA 1 in 1990), but I generally agree with the gist of the Carrot Cake Thesis. I'm quietly pleased there are still a few titles--specifically around OD&D--that don't have so much of the carrot cake problem. But I s'pose those are not particularly osr anyway, so... yeah. That's more or less why I voted "no connection with osr" or whatever it was.

[tdenmark]

Aug 27, 2021 0:03:03 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

So if for some folks OSR is about trying to experience how Gary and Dave played the game while clarifying some of the rules, did they OSR miss the mark?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFoTj1sxFQ8

While I enjoy the channel, I don't quite agree with the author's premise. OSR games have a specific edition in mind, and the authors try to reproduce the rulesets in a more cohesive manner. Some do have their share of house rules built into their systems, however.

On the other hand the carrot cake of today has been perfected, so much more delicious than it was back in the 1500's. And it sounds like it would be terrible. Cake made out of carrots?! Yuck. Oh, contraire mon frere. It is quite dee-lish-us.

I wish the SVE could be published because out of all the OSR, it is the most original carrot cake. Kind of like 4K77.

[tdenmark]

Aug 25, 2021 11:24:34 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

Aug 25, 2021 10:58:00 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

This thread is getting unexpectedly heated.

Hah. I saw it coming 2 pages ago the moment someone used the phrase, "concerted efforts to remove undesirables." Heated was inevitable from that point. I'm just amazed it hasn't gone full-bore flame war by now.

And just like that it cooled down again and got back on track with thoughtful pointed discussion.

Any other forum this would have spiraled down into the abyss. Pretty great group of gamers here.

[ahabicher]

Aug 27, 2021 4:39:26 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Aug 25, 2021 11:24:34 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

Hah. I saw it coming 2 pages ago the moment someone used the phrase, "concerted efforts to remove undesirables." Heated was inevitable from that point. I'm just amazed it hasn't gone full-bore flame war by now.

And just like that it cooled down again and got back on track with thoughtful pointed discussion.

Any other forum this would have spiraled down into the abyss. Pretty great group of gamers here.

Indeed ... I saw it getting heated as soon as I read "today's OSR scene" in the title, because that whole scene is just a bunch of people warning each other to stay away from each other.

[ahabicher]

Aug 27, 2021 0:03:03 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

So if for some folks OSR is about trying to experience how Gary and Dave played the game while clarifying some of the rules, did they OSR miss the mark?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFoTj1sxFQ8

While I enjoy the channel, I don't quite agree with the author's premise. OSR games have a specific edition in mind, and the authors try to reproduce the rulesets in a more cohesive manner. Some do have their share of house rules built into their systems, however.

I don't think that is necessarily true. Maze Rats and Electric Bastionland and Troika are usually accepted as OSR, but neither of them are reproducing any rules set ... however, they are reproducing a particular "feel". Which is, for the most part, "struggling to survive grave danger in an attempt to explore unknown areas and find valuable or interesting things". But I am sure there is not, and never will be, a definite definition (haha, definite definition) of the OSR, because at its core OSR is freedom to change and tweak, and that means there always MUST be differences from table to table.
The freedom of choice, on the part of the players and on the part of the GM, that is the soul of the OSR.

[robertsconley]

Sept 3, 2021 6:12:06 GMT -6 ahabicher said:

because at its core OSR is freedom to change and tweak, and that means there always MUST be differences from table to table.

And the best part is that is built in as a result of how it came about in the first place. Discussion and sharing via the Internet combined with the judicious use of open content, the D20 SRD, that everybody has equal access too.

[derv]

Sept 3, 2021 7:43:11 GMT -6 robertsconley said:

Discussion and sharing via the Internet combined with the judicious use of open content, the D20 SRD, that everybody has equal access too.

It seems that the key to your understanding and definition of the OSR is what you see as its intimate relationship with the SRD. This is what allows for a pretty broad understanding for some.

Personally I think this thread only illustrates how the term has loss any clear focus. It has become a catch all that is increasingly becoming meaningless.