Quote from: CRKrueger;758538As Ravenswing said, if you look over the last week or so, you'll find OSR Taliban now apparently means "disagree with anything having to do with 5e".  

People went to war this time without even a released game.  I guess the battles over 6th will begin when it's announced.

No. My stance is why do some raise nonsense at every turn as information comes out about the game in dribs and drabs when all they intend to do is maybe download a free PDF.  You can actually figure out the people that might get all or some of the big 3 because most aren't raising a ruckus but are in chill mode and actually trying to see what WotC's attempting and wondering if it actually has any shot of success.

It'd be more fun to talk about what do you like/hate about the playtest or how would you configure the game, what do you want in future products or whatever. Without over analyzing tweets out of context. Tweets are a terrible source of information for analysis.

Quote from: Marleycat;758550No. My stance is why do some raise nonsense at every turn as information comes out about the game in dribs and drabs

Welcome to the roleplaying community on the internet, I guess. Happens for any game with a large enough following.

To be honest, with all the design team's talk about "story" and the inclusion of things like Ideals, Flaws and Bonds (and now the Renown/affiliation mechanic for Organized Play at least), I'm surprised I haven't seen more OSR hostility to 5E as 'storygaming', 'railroading', 'new school disguised as old school', 'swine gaming' and the like. But then, this forum is the closest I dare tread to an OSR stronghold.

I started using the term four or five years ago. The context was people who took a particular mode of old-school play - sandbox, dungeon exploration, resource management, looting but avoiding fighting, henchmen and hirelings, etc. and declared that people who didn't play that way were doing it wrong. What started as a reaction against modern RPGs had become a purity test applied to those who did play early TSR D&D but weren't playing the way Gygax ran Greyhawk. Even though I started playing in 1979 with Holmes Basic, I've been told at various times that I was never doing it right because:

• I used a lot of published modules.
• As a consequence of using published modules, we had enormous hordes of magic items and gold.
• Even though we awarded XP for GP, we enjoyed combat and cleared out dungeons of all monsters if at all possible.
• We never used domain management rules.

The key thing to keep in mind is I never came under fire for this stuff, or saw anyone else come on fire for it, 7 or 8 years ago. The tenets of the OSR Taliban only became codified when people on certain forums started parsing the reports of Gygax and trying to systematize very early D&D play modes. That's why Taliban is such an apt turn - it isn't standard conservatism, but a very virulent strain that hearkens back to the ideals of a past that never was. The OSR Taliban turned old-school discussion from how people actually played to how people should play.

I remember a handful of OSR folks dick-waving about who was the most old-school, but that was a few years ago. I think that's mostly died down. I really haven't seen much OSR commentary on 5e compared to 3e and 4e commentary.

Of course, I really don't even know what counts as OSR anymore. Apparently 2e and late Basic/Rules Cyclopedia sometimes do and sometimes don't. I do get the impression that 5e is starting to appeal to that demographic (mine) more than the AD&D 1e demographic. The rules and general philosophy seem closer, and I suspect we'll see more Thunder Rift or Four from Cormyr stuff than Expedition to Barrier Peaks (which is very, very 1e despite the tech trappings).

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;758553To be honest, with all the design team's talk about "story" and the inclusion of things like Ideals, Flaws and Bonds (and now the Renown/affiliation mechanic for Organized Play at least), I'm surprised I haven't seen more OSR hostility to 5E as 'storygaming', 'railroading', 'new school disguised as old school', 'swine gaming' and the like. But then, this forum is the closest I dare tread to an OSR stronghold.

I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been more pushback on that as well. Probably because I suspect most people who aren't FATE fans will ignore that. This is the first edition I've ever seen that's been influenced by FATE-style metagame mechanics (as opposed to D&D metagame mechanics). There was a reputation system in some older editions, but I don't imagine it got a lot of use.

From what I can tell (disclaimer: Middle/New Schooler who knows the OSR primarily from outside, is admittedly a hostile witness, and only bought his own copies of the 1E books two or three weeks ago ), the "Old School" is fundamentally people who like TSR/pre-3E editions of D&D, with some expansion into other games of the time period--pretty much pre-Vampire stuff.

Within that big tent, there's a whole bunch of subcategories and gradations, ranging from those who stand on the edge of 'middle school'--usually 2E and RC fans who sometimes identify or are identified with the group--to the kinds of folks Haffrung is talking about, with all sorts, from AD&D 1E purists to those who denounce the Thief as 'new school', in between. For one example of how diverse it can be, someone here mentioned a few days ago that for them, Runequest 2 was old school, while over on TBP a few years ago, Old Geezer once said that from his point of view, Runequest's skill system was an example of 'new school'.

I try to understand it and share what I understand of it with others, but to be honest, the only thing that really bothers me is the argument of some that the things I enjoy--2nd Edition's tone and feel, more story-focused and heroic  gaming, etc.--are the things that 'betrayed and murdered D&D'. The game did change, and one can argue about whether or not it should have changed, but the change happened and attracted a lot of people, and while they may not be 'old school' in the strictest sense, they have a stake in D&D and a right to be heard, even if it's to negotiate a secession and cease-fire.

(Thinking of starting up a "5hining Armor Movement" to counter some of the more virulent 5atanists out there ... )

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;758560(Thinking of starting up a "5hining Armor Movement" to counter some of the more virulent 5atanists out there ... )

The 5ghtback?

Quote from: CRKrueger;758538As Ravenswing said, if you look over the last week or so, you'll find OSR Taliban now apparently means "disagree with anything having to do with 5e".  

.

No matter how many times you repeat this, it doesn't make it any more true.  I will, of course, completely retract this if you can show me one person who accused another of being OSR Taliban for just disagreeing with anything to do with 5e.

But I doubt you'll ever actually provide anything remotely like that.

OSR Taliban very strong. OSR Taliban fight the oppressors. OSR Taliban will rain fire on one major rpg system EACH WEEK until demands are met.

Well from what Estar said about actually playing the game at Origins (he made a thread about it) it seems we all may be getting what we want or at least the game looks flexible enough to achieve it.

Quote from: Marleycat;758576Well from what Estar said about actually playing the game at Origins (he made a thread about it) it seems we all may be getting what we want or at least the game looks flexible enough to achieve it.

I have to grudgingly agree. I'm tired of being suckered by new editions, but 5e does seem like it's going to be an okay edition. Maybe the lack of razzledazzle high concepts will actually mean that they'll make a solid, middle-of-the-road, economically-strong game. I'm not sure 5e is going to do that well, but I'd LOVE to be proven wrong and see it become wildly successful.

Quote from: RPGPundit;758402Since some people seem to think that "OSR Taliban" is a brand-new term I specifically invented on account of certain responses to the news about the D&D starter set or the Basic D&D PDF.  Likewise, some people seem to want to pretend that when I used that term it means that I think ALL the OSR (which, let's remember, I count myself as a member of) are like a 'taliban'.  

For the record, the term "OSR Taliban" is several years older than the recent controversy.  It does NOT refer to just anyone who isn't gushingly enthusiastic about 5e.

It does refer to that extremist wing of the OSR (fortunately now in a diminishing minority, but who a few years back seemed to be main movers of the OSR's ideas and 'gatekeepers' for it) who engage in "old school extremism", who only want to play the original editions or precise clones, who deride any mechanic created after a certain date (the date varies, and they get into contests of "who is more old school" by competing as to what cutoff date they use).  They often claim to seek some kind of UR-D&D by looking at long-lost notes of Gygax or Arneson's.  In short, the guys who think that if you are using anything in RPGs made after 1983, or 81, or 79, or 74 (or sometimes even earlier!) then you are "betraying old school".  These are the people who just wanted the OSR to be a long string of identical "clone" games after another, and reject any innovation whatsoever.  They had a lot of influence at one point, but as they ran out of stuff to precisely clone and more designers started making (awesome) OSR games that weren't clones but were NEW ideas using the old-school framework (stuff like "Stars Without Number", "DCC", "LotFP", "ACKS", Arrows of Indra, Other Dust, Hulks and Horrors, Machinations of the Space Princess, etc. etc.), they ended up becoming sidelined.

In short, if you don't care about 5e, or if you're still cautious and distrusting of WoTC, that doesn't make you "OSR Taliban".  If on the other hand you were determined right from the start to despise 5e and declare it "not old school enough" no matter what 5e does then you may be OSR Taliban (and bonus points if you deceptively make posts pretending like you "MIGHT have liked" 5e but "-insert latest revelation here- has just totally ruined it for you because they did it wrong").  And if you're one of these guys who thinks that anything that does not precisely mimic a single old edition of D&D or any innovation at all beyond an arbitrary dateline is going to be wrong, then you're definitely "OSR Taliban".

This should have been directed to me, but I suppose RPGPundit wanted to stir up some more 5e drama/buzz.

Anyways, you totally missed the point.

It has nothing to do with 5e, nothing to do with old school or gamers liking what they like.  In the last month or so, half a dozen people (not really behind your back because its posted publicly) called you an asshole, the principle reason was your use of the term "OSR Taliban".  And when new people who had never heard of you before (yeah, there's a lot of OSR people who don't know who the heck you are) started agreeing, "Yeah, that guy does sound like a total douche."  Well, I felt bad for you.  That's why I tried to open your eyes to what was going on.

At this point, I'm basically done defending you.  Maybe I shouldn't have started in the first place but whatever.  When OSR people talk ill of RPGPundit, citing that less than diplomatic phrase as their main reason, I'll just ignore it.  There, problem solved.

VS

Quote from: The Butcher;758513Classic Pundejo. Like I told him in the D&D Basic thread that got this shitstorm started, I don't think anyone holds the position he's railing against.

But then we are talking about someone who believes White Wolf and/or storygamers are plotting the downfall of Western civilization.

I think the key is this:

Quote from: RPGPundit;758402It does refer to that extremist wing of the OSR (fortunately now in a diminishing minority, but who a few years back seemed to be main movers of the OSR's ideas and 'gatekeepers' for it) who engage in "old school extremism", who only want to play the original editions or precise clones, who deride any mechanic created after a certain date (the date varies, and they get into contests of "who is more old school" by competing as to what cutoff date they use).  They often claim to seek some kind of UR-D&D by looking at long-lost notes of Gygax or Arneson's.  In short, the guys who think that if you are using anything in RPGs made after 1983, or 81, or 79, or 74 (or sometimes even earlier!) then you are "betraying old school".  These are the people who just wanted the OSR to be a long string of identical "clone" games after another, and reject any innovation whatsoever.

I bolded the part where Pundit (and others) jump to a conclusion. You can find examples of people doing something resembling the things he mentions:

(1) Only want to play original editions or precise clones;
(2) Deride late edition mechanics;
(3) Seek some kind of Ur-D&D.

... although there's a bit of re-interpretation of even these behaviors going on. It's all about seeing some focused, passionate behavior in a couple individuals and choosing to read a hostile motivation into it. Those guys aren't just picking a range of what they want to play... they're forcing everyone else to play the same way! They aren't just singling out late edition mechanics as reasons why they don't play more recent editions... they are rejecting innovation! They aren't just studying the original rules and contemporary commentary to see where they might have diverged from what we think the rules say, or looking for lost rules that might be interesting... they are turning original D&D into a religion, with Gary and Dave as prophets!

If you actually look at what people are actually doing, without reading various sinister intentions into it, you see that not only are the "OSR Taliban" not really living up to the name, there's a lot more divergence from the "One True Faith" than some would have us believe. Everyone I know of who did a blog series on the original rules or posted about articles in Strategic Review or rare zines of the day also stated which rules they'd like to keep, what rules they'd drop, and which they'd change. Everyone who runs a dedicated OD&D-only blog posts house rules.  Can't think of anyone who runs OD&D "rules as written" with all the rules... most OSR types deried RAW as being a new school thing, anyways.

Quote from: Omega;758457No no no! Its PHB, DMG, MM, and Deities & Demigods! Yeesh, get it right kids!

That's sort of where I come from. PHB, DMG, MM and selectively Deities & Demigods as a template for implementing cosmology (and whatever pantheons I wanted to include in a campaign - but not all in the book).

A lot of players I know love UA, but also lots of DMs don't.

Quote from: RPGPundit;758402Since some people seem to think that "OSR Taliban" is a brand-new term I specifically invented on account of certain responses to the news about the D&D starter set or the Basic D&D PDF.  Likewise, some people seem to want to pretend that when I used that term it means that I think ALL the OSR (which, let's remember, I count myself as a member of) are like a 'taliban'.  

I'm utterly amazed than anyone would give a shit about such a stupid term, or that you'd need to chime and explain it's origins.