Some more thoughts about the OSR

[thegreyelf]

Just a few more thoughts about the pointless arguments that keep erupting about the OSR and whether it's in some way inherently "conservative" or "right wing"

Hint: it's not, any more than it's an actual organized movement.

elflairgames.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-osr-shorthand-and-pointless.html

[Deleted]

I always point to the "Renaissance" in "Old School Renaissance" as a hint to what it is. Old classics reinterpreted by a new generation/s, each participant bringing their own perspectives, experiences and talents to this exploration. It cannot take a unified stance on any issue by definition. It's the act of thousands of individuals seeing a light on a mountaintop and each of them describing it in their own way.

[tdenmark]

The debate is hilarious over what OSR is. We can't even agree on what OSR stands for!

I like Old School Rules. But that is one of the least common interpretations.

[Finarvyn]

Here's my short timeline:

1. Old games were made.

2. WotC bought the company that made old games, then made their own new game. The new game had a SRD that allowed folks to publish material from their new games.

3. WotC had no interest in folks playing the old games and didn't want to make copies available, but folks realized they could take the SRD and re-make the old games.

Bottom line for me is that the OSR is all about the return to simplicity in games. When I run 5E I can run it with rules and style a lot like the old games, so it's not just about the age of the game. When I run OD&D I can do it with my original booklets or my SW:WB and so it's not just about the letter of the rules. OSR is all about a play style and a philosophy, and the notion that going back to the older type of rules is a good thing.

Night Shift is an OSR thing, in my book, because it embraces the feel and style of the older games even though it's only a year or so old. Pathfinder 2E isn't an OSR thing because it enforces a lot of rules baggage. That isn't an attempt to bash PF 2E, which may be an awesome game, but it's not my kind of game because it doesn't feel like my kind of game. The World of Darkness games are old, but never felt "old school" to me even when they were new.

I think a lot of the problem is that the OSR was originally designed for one purpose (to allow folks to publish materials for editions of D&D that WotC was keeping hidden) and later repurposed by folks who felt left out (Runequest or other d100 systems, Vampire, or whatever) and this started a lot of debate that really shouldn't be there. No one debates that some of the other games were good, but the d20 SRD wasn't intended to cover those and the original OSR wasn't either.

An OSR game should be one that you know by feel, not so much by definition.

[thegreyelf]

The real point of the blog is to address the idea that "OSR" is somehow politicized to one end or the other. As you said, Marv, it's literally just about an older style of play. Period.

[doublejig2]

Oh yeah, Fighton! is back!

[tdenmark]

Growing up my parents would talk about politics a week or two before a presidential election. I don't recall any other time it was even brought up in our home. Now politics has invaded EVERYTHING (one of the reasons I love this board, such discussion is not even allowed). I miss simpler times. The OSR has nothing to do with politics. And that is a completely separate thing from individuals who play OSR type of games who themselves make political statements online. That should not conflate the two things. And I've seen some egregious stuff on both sides in that manner.

I could play D&D with Marx and McCarthy as long as they didn't mention politics at the table.

Anyway, I agree with Jason's post.

[Melan]

It is really sad you have to restate the obvious... but it looks like it has to be done every now and then so it doesn't get hijacked by a narrow sliver of agenda-driven people.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but societies tend to be divided somewhere around 50-50% along left/right lines - this is the prevailing model of human politics. If you believe half of your own countrymen to be irredeemably evil, perhaps some self-reflection is in order, because nothing good will come from that sort of thinking. Or to quote Solzhenytsin,

If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

During the life of any heart this line keeps changing place; sometimes it is squeezed one way by exuberant evil and sometimes it shifts to allow enough space for good to flourish. One and the same human being is, at various ages, under various circumstances, a totally different human being. At times he is close to being a devil, at times to sainthood. But his name doesn't change, and to that name we ascribe the whole lot, good and evil.

Socrates taught us: 'Know thyself!

[tombowings]

Apr 9, 2022 1:53:26 GMT -6 Melan said:

It is really sad you have to restate the obvious... but it looks like it has to be done every now and then so it doesn't get hijacked by a narrow sliver of agenda-driven people.

Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but societies tend to be divided somewhere around 50-50% along left/right lines - this is the prevailing model of human politics. If you believe half of your own countrymen to be irredeemably evil, perhaps some self-reflection is in order, because nothing good will come from that sort of thinking. Or to quote Solzhenytsin,

I think it's more that different individuals have different visions of the society they wish to inhabit. "Left" and "Right" are names we apply to two of the most popular sets of related visions.

I've lived in four different countries during my adult life, each for more than two years. In each one of those countries "conservative" (right) meant something completely different. Where I live now, conservationism is closely related to communism, oddly enough.

For me, I just want to be left alone to live my own life. Communists can have their communes. Anarcho capitalist can have corporate paradises. Both are viable was to organize human relationships, but favor different personality temperaments. As much as I enjoy arguing, I'm just sick of people forcing their opinions on others. Different people have different physical and psychological needs, even at the level of genetics. One society cannot accommodate them all equally. It is simply impossible.

(And who knows, conformity of preference might result in something worse!)

Instead if trying to feeling morally superior to others, I try to realize that I am incredibly flawed. Each day, I try to be a bit better each day. Some days I succeed, some days I fail.

But hey! That's life. We live in a fallen world.

And in all honestly, all I can do is be thankful for what I have. My life could by infinitely worse than it is.

[doublejig2]

Nothing ventured, nothing gained... in the heart, in Plato, in politics, in life, at the game table. It is right to give thanks.

[tdenmark]

Apr 9, 2022 3:29:57 GMT -6 tombowings said:

For me, I just want to be left alone to live my own life.

This. Exactly this.

Unfortunately there are busybodies on the "right" and "left" and inbetween that want to get into your business. I can't elaborate because then I would be talking politics.

[machfront]

I’m “into” politics only because I value and default to freedom for everything/everyone and nearly no ‘side’ (outside of Libertarians, here in the States) does.

Screw all of them. Love your own life. Help others. Help yourself! Love. Give. Work/Contribute. Protect. Also, give the angrily extended middle finger when needs be…by vote, or better, by wallet.

As far as gaming, I just wanna game and I want my fantasy gaming to be just and only that.
It’s an escape. It’s one of those lil things for fun, like going on a hike, going to the range to shoot, hunting, biking, watching a film, reading, chatting with friends or strangers, antique shop hopping, or…heck…even as silly as walking around Walmart, just because.

Let’s let fun remain.

[captainjapan]

Apr 8, 2022 9:23:18 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

Just a few more thoughts about the pointless arguments that keep erupting about the OSR and whether it's in some way inherently "conservative" or "right wing"

Hint: it's not, any more than it's an actual organized movement.

elflairgames.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-osr-shorthand-and-pointless.html

I understand some people (fifty percent, more-or-less) not wanting to associate with conservative or "right wing" politics. I wonder though, at what other forums are you linking your blog post? I don't guess the OSR label will receive too much reconsideration on odd74 for being non-partisan. We're all insiders, here. I for one, would be keen to follow your lead if you'd like to perform some kind of outreach for newcomers. Just tell me where, on social media, the good name of OSR is being maligned. We'll set the record straight

[derv]

I hope people understand that this is not a winnable argument. There are a couple reasons for this. Foremost, since the OSR is decentralized, what it was and what it is can always be commandeered. We are talking about ideas and ideals about gaming that never had 100% agreement, as greyelf points out. It's always been who has been willing to put their ideas out there and has had the most exposure. So, if I want to say the OSR is about bells and bunnies, all I need is a few people to jump on the bells and bunnies bandwagon that are agreeable with the premise and they start spreading the word. Maybe we even start a Bells and Bunnies zine. Alternatively, another group could spawn a reactionary "screw the bells and bunnies concept" blog review where works are scrutinized as rubbish. Or worse, individuals associated with bells and bunnies are personally attacked. This can all start to have political overtones. Yet, it really just boils down to opinion.

Secondly, you really have to recognize that many of these ideas are political expressions. You can say you want to keep politics out of your gaming all you want, you are still expressing political sentiments when doing so. Such things as free market capitalism, individualism, corporate social responsibility, rights of expression, blah, blah, blah. You get the idea.

My final point is an aside. It is the unfortunate reality that some luminaries associated with old school gaming have been revealed as what is labeled "far right". Obviously I am talking about Bob Bledsaw II and MAR Barker. This is troubling stuff that taints the waters of opinion.

[tombowings]

Apr 9, 2022 9:13:44 GMT -6 derv said:

It is the unfortunate reality that some luminaries associated with old school gaming have been revealed as what is labeled "far right". Obviously I am talking about Bob Bledsaw II and MAR Barker. This is troubling stuff that taints the waters of opinion.

Or we can separate the art from the artist. Or better, realize than many so-called "unfortunate opinions" likely stem more from incorrect information and poorly thought-out assumptions rather than any special lack of moral character.

And even then, I am skeptical about our own ability to choose our morality. I certain cannot recreate my own intuitive sense of right and wrong. Perhaps, though, I lack willpower.

[derv]

Apr 9, 2022 9:25:01 GMT -6 tombowings said:

Or we can separate the art from the artist. Or better, realize than many so-called "unfortunate opinions" likely stem more from incorrect information and poorly thought-out assumptions rather than any special lack of moral character.

Yes, of course you can hold such a position. I've also heard it expressed that it matters whether the individual is alive or not, whether we would be actively supporting them personally. As I suggest, this has the appearance of opinion, perhaps political. Conversely, this view could be labeled as entitling and from a position of entitlement. Or worse, it could be viewed as endorsement or marginalization of an issue or people group. Either way, it is not a winnable argument. Rather, it ends up being a stalemate because there is no one spokesman on the matter. Instead, there are diverse pockets of individual voices trying to get their points across.

[tombowings]

Apr 9, 2022 12:04:17 GMT -6 derv said:

Instead, there are diverse pockets of individual voices trying to get their points across.

That is the trouble with looking at complex system as wholes instead of the sum and interactions of many parts, which in turn are composed of other parts, and so on and so forth beyond human understand.

The cosmos is too complicated for any one person or even our entire species to (currently) comprehend. When someone gets something wrong, I prefer to cut that person some slack.

I have probably had millions of ideas, realizations, and opinions during my life. I'm quite sure 99.999999% of them were either wrong or underdeveloped (perhaps I'm just an idiot). Thank God, most of them haven't landed me in all that much trouble, though. Unfortunately some individual's misconceptions have led them into territory that much of society deems unacceptable.

[captainjapan]

derv said:

My final point is an aside. It is the unfortunate reality that some luminaries associated with old school gaming have been revealed as what is labeled "far right". Obviously I am talking about Bob Bledsaw II and MAR Barker. This is troubling stuff that taints the waters of opinion.

oh, my.
I had no idea about Barker. I must've spent the last few weeks under a rock. My thoughts turn to Chirine. Had he not extricated himself from the online discussions a few years back, the outrage machine would surely be calling him to account. Guilt by association and all

[geoffrey]

I have played D&D since 1980--42 years! In all those decades I do not remember politics coming up during our games (not even once). I kind of feel sorry for people who interrupt gaming for politics.

[tkdco2]

The problem, at least in the USA, is that some folks -- on both sides of the aisle -- think politics should get into everything. I don't think these folks are the majority of gamers, just an extremely vocal minority. It's not limited to rpgs; look at how politics crept into the argument about the upcoming Rings of Power series.

If you play OSR, you're a conservative? I'm pretty liberal and proud of it. But who cares? We're not here to argue politics, there are lots of places for that. We're here to talk about the games we love. We can agree to disagree and put aside our differences. But that option sadly seems to be unthinkable to so many people.

I'm starting to wondering if it's just another way to keep the edition wars going.

[Deleted]

Apr 9, 2022 13:07:03 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I have played D&D since 1980--42 years! In all those decades I do not remember politics coming up during our games (not even once). I kind of feel sorry for people who interrupt gaming for politics.

I sadly cannot say the same as my players assassinated the King and replaced him with a doppelganger once.

[doublejig2]

I think political views spring first and foremost from one's ethos. It follows that in these times heroic remains a possibility.

It is the hero who defeats the villain. An evildoer’s reputation captures his own words and deeds and those of members of his organization. In any case, as given by Kirk Botula, it stays also a matter of common belief, which in deadly secrets spirals and spreads to lonely outreaches, either with or without direct evidence. Selfish or psychic concerns flounder around its particularity, yet ultimately only the hero delivers the expert testimony and verdict as regards any substance here. It is the hero who puts to rest the common or prevailing sentiment and fear surrounding the evildoer and his goals.

[skars]

Apr 8, 2022 9:23:18 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

Just a few more thoughts about the pointless arguments that keep erupting about the OSR and whether it's in some way inherently "conservative" or "right wing"

Hint: it's not, any more than it's an actual organized movement.

elflairgames.blogspot.com/2022/04/the-osr-shorthand-and-pointless.html

Some long time participants in the OSR have been unabashedly politically far right for a decade or more and have insisted on bringing politics to the game table at every opportunity, but especially since the polarizing US presidential election in 2016 and later when hasbro pushed for inclusivity. If it's not Bob Bledsoe 3 with wet dreams of fascism followed by diarrhea of the mouth, it's "the new TSR" and other nonsense. I'm not shocked that there is a misunderstanding of what the OSR is or where many of the participants place their integrity, especially in online forums that have weathered the proselytizing of wing nuts for years. There have definitely been plenty of us liberals involved all along as was mentioned by Derv. And it turns out, some of those people were predators and not a very nice persons too.

Personally, I subscribe to what many of you have said about what the OSR means to you; it's a chance to essentially combine nostalgia with rpgs. Thinking back to when we got started with the game or hearing about how others have played over the years. Going back and buying the stuff we couldn't have as kids or recreating it with retroclones so others can enjoy it too. The Wizards/Hasbro SRD is the catalyst, the open source software to allow others to build upon, that got so many people creating and contributing. Later they made the old rules available again via pdf/pod. Some rules are simpler and plenty of OSR game mechanics are archaic and fiddly. So, I don't know that it is specifically about old rules, but I can understand how that might be the definition for others.

[Deleted]

I'm sorry to see ODD74 discussing politics.

I'd just as soon not belong to the forum that lacks the self-control to refrain from doing so.

[rredmond]

Please let’s not do the politics.
and…

Apr 10, 2022 1:33:27 GMT -6 @Deleted said:

I'd just as soon not belong to the forum that lacks the self-control to refrain from doing so.

Give the Mods a chance to respond to the posts.

See Rule #2 here:  odd74.proboards.com/thread/12913/rules-board-join-odd74

Apr 14, 2018 20:08:28 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Your moderator team has decided that my “play nice” set of forum rules was too loose and vague, and so we collectively came up with more specific rules for the OD&D Discussion boards.

This is a site for discussing OD&D and other "old school" games. Have fun, but please follow some simple guidelines:

1. One account per human. Members are not allowed to use multiple or "sock puppet" accounts. If you have an account at any related forum, we'd prefer you use the same username here so that members will know who you are. If you're brand new to these parts, please visit the introduction thread to introduce yourself.

2. Feel free to discuss any gaming topics you like, but please avoid introducing religious, political, or other "real world" discussions that aren't specific to gaming or fictional game worlds. Discuss it elsewhere. These topics tend to get people here worked up, and to be counter productive.

3. Do not enter a discussion for the sole purpose of disrupting said discussion. Basically, don't be a jerk.

4. Respect others, and respect your Mod team. If you get a warning from the Mod team, please take it seriously. Remember; you are a guest in my living room and I'd rather not have you crap on my carpet.

5. Violation of the rules will result in a warning, a time-out, or a ban. (Usually in that progression.)

[Finarvyn]

Apr 9, 2022 13:42:30 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Apr 9, 2022 13:07:03 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I have played D&D since 1980--42 years! In all those decades I do not remember politics coming up during our games (not even once). I kind of feel sorry for people who interrupt gaming for politics.

I sadly cannot say the same as my players assassinated the King and replaced him with a doppelganger once.

I assume that geoffrey was talking about real-world politics, and not in-game politics. Of course RPG campaigns have some political element to them on a regular basis.

It's the real-world stuff that we want to avoid. No matter the position taken, someone somewhere will have an opposing view and then real-world bickering occurs.