Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623226OSR is all about TSR. Even blackbox Traveller and Tunnels and Trolls is left out of that one. I don't say this as a matter of ideological purity. It's purely descriptive.

Yea. There is some overlap in interest, but the notion that old-TSR fandom constitutes THE old school -- that it's identical with whatever divisions may exist in other game fandoms -- is not tenable.

Fans of other games can speak for themselves and define their own "schools" without needing outsiders to dictate to them.

It's especially galling when people who were (maybe even still are) not real enthusiasts of the non-TSR game in question take the mantle. Someone who considers skill systems anathema, for instance, has no business defining a "school" of RuneQuest!

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623233Apocalypse World is a wargame. It's a wargame with a few Narrative control mechanics, and a bent towards roleplaying your "piece" (i.e. character), but it's still a heavily stylized, exactingly mechanically defined system.

That puts me in mind of GDW's En Garde (ca. 1975).

Quote from: Lynn;623205What I have been sensitized to so far are various essays, blog posts and forum posts that seem coordinated and purposeful for positioning a generation of products as the next evolution of RPG, and trying to coopt what's happening with OSR - with stealth marketing.

Obviously authorial intent can never be proved unless admitted, all you can do is look at the process and result.  If I were going to coordinate and purposefully try to position a generation of products as the next evolution of RPGs (RPG 2.0 if you will), and do it through stealth marketing and memetic conflict, how would I do it?  What would it look like?  It would look like exactly what we have coming from areas of the narrative movement.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, do I really need a full DNA scan to prove it's not an elephant?  If the only people who say I do are the people who also say that it is an elephant, what does that tell you?

Quote from: jhkimDo you have a problem with Dungeon World's marketing - and if so, what would you prefer?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;623226I'm not an OSR person. I cut my teeth on redbox D&D and AD&D, but I've long since moved on to other gaming systems, primarily skill-based.

My favorite game is Torg, followed by Shadowrun and followed by 3e. That may indicate where my tastes lie.

But Dungeon World isn't OSR. It just... isn't. It's crazy to say so, IMHO.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;623230I think where the DW thing starts getting wierd for me, is people trying to  give the forge and storygames credit for the OSR (or not seeing the difference between OSR and what DW seems to be offering). I don't see that happening on the quoted text above, but I have seen it online in discussions (not saying the designers of DW are doing that though).

I agree with Brendan here.  I had been talking about the marketing of Dungeon World - by which I meant what the creators say about it.  They don't claim to be OSR.  

Crazy things that other people on the net say about it isn't marketing, though it is still a problem.  Yes, there is a subset of story gamers who make ridiculous claims of various sorts.  I argue with them, too.

Quote from: CRKrueger;623267Obviously authorial intent can never be proved unless admitted, all you can do is look at the process and result.  If I were going to coordinate and purposefully try to position a generation of products as the next evolution of RPGs (RPG 2.0 if you will), and do it through stealth marketing and memetic conflict, how would I do it?  What would it look like?  It would look like exactly what we have coming from areas of the narrative movement.

Calling yourself "the next evolution in RPGs" or "cutting edge" isn't stealth marketing, it's just plain marketing.  

It's normal for new product marketing to claim to be the Next Big Thing, better than the existing stuff.  That's just the nature of advertising, and doesn't indicate a sinister plan to destroy everything else.

Quote from: Phillip;623238Yea. There is some overlap in interest, but the notion that old-TSR fandom constitutes THE old school -- that it's identical with whatever divisions may exist in other game fandoms -- is not tenable.

Fans of other games can speak for themselves and define their own "schools" without needing outsiders to dictate to them.

It's especially galling when people who were (maybe even still are) not real enthusiasts of the non-TSR game in question take the mantle. Someone who considers skill systems anathema, for instance, has no business defining a "school" of RuneQuest!

Thing is, Traveller fans coined the term grognard to describe Classic Traveller affecianadoes long before the OSR was a thing. Funny thing is, you can see a similar pattern of acceptance and popularity between the Traveller product line over history and the D&D product line over history.

Quote from: Phillip;623238Yea. There is some overlap in interest, but the notion that old-TSR fandom constitutes THE old school -- that it's identical with whatever divisions may exist in other game fandoms -- is not tenable.

Fans of other games can speak for themselves and define their own "schools" without needing outsiders to dictate to them.

It's especially galling when people who were (maybe even still are) not real enthusiasts of the non-TSR game in question take the mantle. Someone who considers skill systems anathema, for instance, has no business defining a "school" of RuneQuest!

I can't think of anybody in the OSR that is trying make it their business to define what is old school for other types of RPGs. It seems to me the plate is already full enough with older editions of D&D.

I do know many of us are active gamers of other older editions so have our own opinions on what is old school Traveller, Runequest, etc.

I know of someone who by his own admission looked down on T&T in the old days, yet saw fit to pontificate about its "old-schoolness" from his TSR-centric (and personal-ideology-centric) definition.

The game of "Is Game X Old School?" has been avidly played on every old-D&D fan site I've visited. Not, mind you, "What is the 'Old School' in C&S?" but simply whether it's to be counted part of 'THE' Old School.

The same or not, many such people remind me of the kids who in the late 1970s and 1980s were ragging on the then-"old school" D&Ders for not toeing (what was in the kids' eyes) the new true creed of AD&D, and turned up their noses at anything non-TSR. Some fellows who now rag on everything WotC-D&D abandoned old TSR-D&D and spent a lot on (or even earned a little from) 3e -- while others of us never tossed the old game on the rubbish heap in the first place.

Quote from: jhkim;623274Calling yourself "the next evolution in RPGs" or "cutting edge" isn't stealth marketing, it's just plain marketing.  

It's normal for new product marketing to claim to be the Next Big Thing, better than the existing stuff.  That's just the nature of advertising, and doesn't indicate a sinister plan to destroy everything else.

Good marketing takes the most palatable form for the target market.

For example, if you create a computer game title and you aren't a big development house or publisher, and you want to gather up small title buyers, then you emulate the expectations for buyers of indie games in how you market.

"But all artifice in art must be concealed,a picture obviously composed is badly composed" - this applies to marketing as well.

"What is old school?" and, "What do you think the OSR should do be/do next?"
Proof that there are indeed stupid questions.

Quote from: CRKrueger;623211There's nothing wrong with that, it's commendable.  But you seem to be making one mistake.

You're assuming a new group with a new branch of thought came in and said "Hey guys, let's all get along." and the evil masterminds Pundit and Benoist decided to start a Pogrom.

In fact, it was the opposite.  The notion of battle, the aggressiveness of the clash, the toxicity of the debate was defined and initiated by the newcomers, not by the staus quo.  We're not the ones who went with brain damage, and we're still not the ones who claim the other side is delusional with multiple personality disorder which you still see tossed up on awful purple or even here from time to time.

If you want to compare Edward's brain damage with Pundit's Swine, just think, how many people here not only don't agree with Pundit, but actually disparage him at every opportunity on his own site?  How many people did that on the Forge?  The Forge was much more in line with Edward's extremes then this place is with Pundit's.

We can go round and round, but what it comes down to is that you, JKim and others, simply do not think that anyone on the narrativist side of things is actually treating this like a clash of ideas and memes and is using proven techniques of "idea warfare" which is usually present in the cultural, political and religious arenas to advance the narrativist memes of the Forge.

Dude I never sais Edwards wasn't a cock. But doesn't mean I have to act like one as well does it?
Maybe there are some evil storygame fifth columnists out to destroy RPGS , maybe .... but in the end the market will out. I doubt DintV will become the new D&D, I doubt that Dungeon World will inspire thousands of new players.

There are more people actively involved in Simming than there are RPG players. Quite a lot of folks don't mind narrative-ish mechanics to a point so its no suprise that major games play with a few ideas. I expect its more because 3 million kids write Harry Potter Fanfic than because someone with a pHD in bat penises once pointed out that RPG kids were all brain damaged.

Quote from: CRKrueger;623216Defining a distinction between Yellow and Red is not even close to declaring a preference for one over the other and it's not even in the same universe as declaring only one should exist.

See what you have there is a reasonable analogy except we exist in a place where 90% of stuff is a shade of orange

Quote from: Phillip;623292I know of someone who by his own admission looked down on T&T in the old days, yet saw fit to pontificate about its "old-schoolness" from his TSR-centric (and personal-ideology-centric) definition.

The game of "Is Game X Old School?" has been avidly played on every old-D&D fan site I've visited. Not, mind you, "What is the 'Old School' in C&S?" but simply whether it's to be counted part of 'THE' Old School.

How about some links rather than generalities so we can judge for ourselves whether your statements are accurate.

So far, I have to say "So what?". "What is Old School" is a highly subjective question to begin with. The reason why publishers like Goodman Games, myself, and others are able to use the term with any effectiveness is that we pay attention to gamers when we try to promote and design our products. A good publisher doesn't just say we made an "Old School" product. They explain why.

Goodman was very effective in explaining that the DCC is about his love of 70s era fantasy. I had some success in explaining that my Majestic Wilderland product is what I think are useful material is culled from 30 years of running the same setting. Likewise I had some success in explaining why I think the hexcrawl format is a nice compact way of presenting a lot of local detail for a setting.

There are not just two kinds of gamers, nor was there a Golden Age inhabited by but one kind.

Quote from: estar;623322How about some links rather than generalities so we can judge for ourselves whether your statements are accurate.

We all can judge for ourselves; Mr. Magoo is of course free to trust his own eyes.

QuoteSo far, I have to say "So what?".

So, suit yourself. If you get a kick out of being the gaming equivalent of Archie Bunker, so be it.