Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;853272If you're gonna be a passive-aggressive little cocksmock, then you should just fuck right off to RPGnet. They love passive-aggressiveness there.

I'll be clear:  You're being really childish.  Whining that some big bad mean people went and stole a word and now you're going throw a big fit and call them things like "post modern" (not that it made any sense when you did so) or more recently, calling them "gaming Al Qaeda."  And rant about their "narrow-minded suffocating zealotry masquerading as rpg authority" and their "grognardian hivemind shit."  I think you're stuck in an us-vs-them mindset.

I think it's totally reasonable to feel less than thrilled that a subset of play from the 70s has come to be identified with the term "old school."  Especially when one's favorite game or approach is excluded and the reasons for doing so seem arbitrary or nonsensical when you see "old school" as being a historical category.  I don't think I'd advocate going off the deep end like you did though.  When all they are trying to do is present, reconstruct, preserve, extend and identify an approach to a game they like.

QuoteIt's about grogs who try to co-opt language, solely in order to accommodate their own personal preferences in rpgs.

What?  People with an interest in something have found a term they like to us to describe their object of interest?  In order to clearly describe what they want out of games, blogs, discussions and publications?  What foul miscreants!  What utter villians!  They really are like Al Qaeda!  :rolleyes:

QuoteJust please stop talking like you possess the monopoly on truth in regards to "old school play". You don't, so just cut it out.

There's a reason the historical category definition didn't end up being the one that stuck.  The people actually involved in OSR stuff at least were talking about something when they were using the term old school, but when you use it, you just have a useless historical category that can't actually say anything about the approach of play as any example will have a contradictory counter example.  

Old school play?  So no skill systems and skill systems.  3d6 in order and points buy.  Specific rules and universal resolution mechanics. No game balance and very concerned with game balance.  Resource management and infinite resources.  Emergent story and intentional story.   Fast combat and slow combat.  System mastery needed and not needed.  Rules as guidelines and rules as binding law.  Description in natural language and primarily talking in system terms.  The list does indeed go on and on.

The reason the historical category definition of old school lost out is that it says nothing more than just saying a range of dates.  The people who were actually interested in a particular approach to the hobby went ahead and identified it and got busy designing, discussing, publishing and playing and now you're just left crying about how they stole a word and pretending it's somehow bad for the hobby.  

Here's some things I wrote earlier in thread that might better explain where I'm coming from than my more recent posts:

Spoiler

The biggest weakness of the term "old school" and its derivations like OSR is that it has come to exclude approaches to play that were around in the 70s. Just think about that for a second. An approach like RuneQuest's skills (they existed as house rules to D&D prior to being made into their own rules) or the kill the gods and take their stuff groups that Ravenswing mentioned are all present very, very early.

I used to say that any definition of old school that excludes stuff from as early as that is stupid. But that was me being stupid and not recognizing that definitions just describe how something is already being used in communication. When we talk about "old school" or OSR, it's okay that it excludes things that are old but are different than what those using the terms are interested in. It's about communication so people are on the same page and that's it.

And:

I'm terribly pragmatic and anti-commercial when it comes to RPGs. I'm looking to get a pretty specific thing out of what people are producing and if they stick to this narrow subset of gaming that has come to be called "old school" then I know I'm at least dealing with something that is likely to interest me. There is simply too much out there to be able to pay attention to it all, so having a network of blogs, g+ communities, publishers, artists, designers, etc., that are on the same page about this definitely saves me from wasting time on wading through stuff I'm not interested in.

And:

Anyone who wants to raise a historical problem with old school excluding things (either explicitly or only implicitly by concentrating on D&D) like Runequest, Tunnels & Trolls, etc., as well as approaches to included games like OD&D are factually correct in terms of history, but irrelevant in terms of what people who are actually into old school RPGs mean when they use the term.

It's like getting confused or angry by Art Nouveau not including the work of early Modernists. They're new right? They're "Nouveau" so why does Art Nouveau exclude them? Because Art Nouveau is a term about a social phenomenon (in this case, an art movement) and not a historical category for all art produced from 1890 to 1910.

And:

It is definitely a symptom that we're dealing with a social category rather than a historical category when you get people trying to exclude people. ... those who have embraced that practice have largely lost the plot. For them it seems to have stopped being about games and started being about identity.  ... any creative endeavor that involves people can stop being about the thing itself and become about identity.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;852673Ah, the Tin Soldier! That is old school. Ever talk to Neil Cauley, the guy who bought that and turned it into Pheonix Games? Great guy. I guess he was a little young to be part of the original Braunstein-to-Chainmail-to-OD&D gaming circle around here, but I know he sat at MAR Barkers table for quite a few years.

Ah, good times...

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I do. I have a lot of his wares in my collection, too; he's been very supportive over the past twenty years...

An "old school > D&D" argument? Shit, is it Tuesday already?

Quote from: NathanIW;853286I'll be clear:  You're being really childish.  Whining that some big bad mean people went and stole a word and now you're going throw a big fit and call them things like "post modern" (not that it made any sense when you did so) or more recently, calling them "gaming Al Qaeda."  And rant about their "narrow-minded suffocating zealotry masquerading as rpg authority" and their "grognardian hivemind shit."  I think you're stuck in an us-vs-them mindset.

Could you not do that? Could you refrain from behaving like a condescending little twat? It's not cute; it's not darling; it's not anything.

Quote from: NathanIWI think it's totally reasonable to feel less than thrilled that a subset of play from the 70s has come to be identified with the term "old school."  Especially when one's favorite game or approach is excluded and the reasons for doing so seem arbitrary or nonsensical when you see "old school" as being a historical category.  I don't think I'd advocate going off the deep end like you did though.  When all they are trying to do is present, reconstruct, preserve, extend and identify an approach to a game they like.

Tell me:

Which "favorite" game of mine is being excluded? I'd really like to know, because you're talking out of your ass here. Again.

Quote from: NathanIWWhat?  People with an interest in something have found a term they like to us to describe their object of interest?  In order to clearly describe what they want out of games, blogs, discussions and publications?  What foul miscreants!  What utter villians!  They really are like Al Qaeda!  :rolleyes:

You're behaving like an emotional infant. Don't be so passive-aggressive; it's obnoxious.

Quote from: NathanIWThere's a reason the historical category definition didn't end up being the one that stuck.  The people actually involved in OSR stuff at least were talking about something when they were using the term old school, but when you use it, you just have a useless historical category that can't actually say anything about the approach of play as any example will have a contradictory counter example.

The main reason that the historical category definition didn't stick, is because the Gygaxians screamed the loudest and the longest on Internet forums.....for many years. They're not as large in number as they were 10 or 15 years ago, but they dominated discussions over the years with their hilariously loud, obnoxious overzealousness.

But not just that; games like RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Rifts, GURPS, and whatnot still enjoyed continual support over the years.....so their fans never became as crabby as the Gygaxians, when those self-same Gygaxian grogs had their favorite game discontinued.

Quote from: NathanIWOld school play?  So no skill systems and skill systems.  3d6 in order and points buy.  Specific rules and universal resolution mechanics. No game balance and very concerned with game balance.  Resource management and infinite resources.  Emergent story and intentional story.   Fast combat and slow combat.  System mastery needed and not needed.  Rules as guidelines and rules as binding law.  Description in natural language and primarily talking in system terms.  The list does indeed go on and on.

Incorrect.

RuneQuest is "old school" by any logical measure. It was published in 1978, and uses a skill system.

GURPS was published in 1986, and uses 3d6.

These are very old games; there's nothing new about them. How else would you classify them; "new school"?

And the reason that the grogs would piteously whine that skill systems don't exist or belong in "old school" games, is that they tried to rewrite history. This attempt was a response to Gygaxian grog hatred of 3e. Back in the day, these grogs passionately hated 3e.....with the fire of a thousand burning suns, so they would obviously latch onto any minute difference...in order to make 3e seem tainted. One day, someone brought up 3e's skill system, so the grogs took that ball...and they rolled with it.

After that, people believed the LIE that old school games didn't use unified mechanics or skill systems, because the grogs kept parroting that LIE over and over again. This LIE was perpetuated as part of a smear campaign against 3e (by Gygaxian grogs). This LIE was parroted so frequently, that the grogs (and many of their audience) finally believed in the LIE.

But it was all epic bullshit.

Quote from: NathanIWThe reason the historical category definition of old school lost out is that it says nothing more than just saying a range of dates.  The people who were actually interested in a particular approach to the hobby went ahead and identified it and got busy designing, discussing, publishing and playing and now you're just left crying about how they stole a word and pretending it's somehow bad for the hobby.

See, this is why I can't really take you seriously. You're STILL behaving like a passive-aggressive little twat.  

Quote from: NathanIWHere's some things I wrote earlier in thread that might better explain where I'm coming from than my more recent posts:

Spoiler

The biggest weakness of the term "old school" and its derivations like OSR is that it has come to exclude approaches to play that were around in the 70s. Just think about that for a second. An approach like RuneQuest's skills (they existed as house rules to D&D prior to being made into their own rules) or the kill the gods and take their stuff groups that Ravenswing mentioned are all present very, very early.

I used to say that any definition of old school that excludes stuff from as early as that is stupid. But that was me being stupid and not recognizing that definitions just describe how something is already being used in communication. When we talk about "old school" or OSR, it's okay that it excludes things that are old but are different than what those using the terms are interested in. It's about communication so people are on the same page and that's it.

And:

I'm terribly pragmatic and anti-commercial when it comes to RPGs. I'm looking to get a pretty specific thing out of what people are producing and if they stick to this narrow subset of gaming that has come to be called "old school" then I know I'm at least dealing with something that is likely to interest me. There is simply too much out there to be able to pay attention to it all, so having a network of blogs, g+ communities, publishers, artists, designers, etc., that are on the same page about this definitely saves me from wasting time on wading through stuff I'm not interested in.

And:

Anyone who wants to raise a historical problem with old school excluding things (either explicitly or only implicitly by concentrating on D&D) like Runequest, Tunnels & Trolls, etc., as well as approaches to included games like OD&D are factually correct in terms of history, but irrelevant in terms of what people who are actually into old school RPGs mean when they use the term.

It's like getting confused or angry by Art Nouveau not including the work of early Modernists. They're new right? They're "Nouveau" so why does Art Nouveau exclude them? Because Art Nouveau is a term about a social phenomenon (in this case, an art movement) and not a historical category for all art produced from 1890 to 1910.

And:

It is definitely a symptom that we're dealing with a social category rather than a historical category when you get people trying to exclude people. ... those who have embraced that practice have largely lost the plot. For them it seems to have stopped being about games and started being about identity.  ... any creative endeavor that involves people can stop being about the thing itself and become about identity.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;854383... condescending little twat ...emotional infant. ...passive-aggressive ...passive-aggressive little twat ...

When someone is being insulting to you without resorting to childish name calling or vulgarity, that isn't them being passive aggressive.  It's just ridicule and sarcasm to show my low opinion of the things you say.

I've explained my position on this.  And it actually doesn't contradict much of what you are saying when it comes to the facts of what went on (though you seem to think it was some grand tin foil hat conspiracy to silence the opposition).  The difference is that I don't see the people who contributed to the definition of old school as horrible villains and liars, but as people who were interested in a particular thing wanting a label for what they are interested in.

I think they were smart to abandon the historical category definition of old school because it says very little and they wanted to talk about an actual thing rather than just games published from year X to year Y and future games that have things in common with those games.  Now we have a term that actually says something specific.  And if you want a community actually centred around something it's probably a good idea for the label you have for it to actually be about something and not be just a historical category of games published between two points in time.

As for RuneQuest, Rifts and a variety of other games that you think count as "old school" because of the publication date, I've already told you that the word has come to mean something other than a historical category.  I get that you want the definition to be different and you can advocate for that and use it in a broader fashion and do your part to contribute your alternate usage, but don't be surprised when you end up talking about something other than what people mean by the term when it comes to RPGs.

I find your offense at the actions of the "post modern lying al Qaeda hivemind zealot grogs" to be hilarious and ridiculous.  You present them as evil manipulators of language trying to foist a harmful agenda onto the hobby when in actuality they were people interested in a specific approach to play who simply didn't want the term they were using to become muddied from the sheer variety of play that occurred in the early days of the hobby.  

They had a particular approach to RPGs in mind about which they wanted to discuss, play, share and publish.  So they naturally excluded what didn't interest them.  And their desires struck a chord with enough people that their approach saw surprisingly wide spread adoption.  It was like there was something enjoyable about that particular subset of 70s play and it has become popularly associated with the term old school as a result.

To you they're the deceitful gaming al Qaeda who "LIE ... LIE ... LIE ... LIE ... LIE" :rolleyes:.  I would suggest getting over your persecution complex and start to accept that it might be about people talking about what they enjoy and wanting a term to describe it rather than some great evil they have inflicted upon you and the hobby.

Quote from: NathanIW;854470When someone is being insulting to you without resorting to childish name calling or vulgarity, that isn't them being passive aggressive.  It's just ridicule and sarcasm to show my low opinion of the things you say.

Ridicule and sarcasm are both forms of passive-aggression.

And sarcasm is usually a dishonest expression of anger and contempt.

Quote from: NathanIW;854470I've explained my position on this.  And it actually doesn't contradict much of what you are saying when it comes to the facts of what went on (though you seem to think it was some grand tin foil hat conspiracy to silence the opposition).  The difference is that I don't see the people who contributed to the definition of old school as horrible villains and liars, but as people who were interested in a particular thing wanting a label for what they are interested in.

Oh, they aren't villains....but they most certainly attempted to co-opt language in order to fit their personal agendas in regards to gaming. It doesn't make them evil, but it's still an obnoxious thing to do.

Quote from: NathanIWI think they were smart to abandon the historical category definition of old school because it says very little and they wanted to talk about an actual thing rather than just games published from year X to year Y and future games that have things in common with those games.  Now we have a term that actually says something specific.  And if you want a community actually centred around something it's probably a good idea for the label you have for it to actually be about something and not be just a historical category of games published between two points in time.

You're partially right; it was smart. They wanted and needed a form of branding, and they got it. This new definition wasn't particularly accurate or honest, but frequent repetition made it into the new reality.

Quote from: NathanIWAs for RuneQuest, Rifts and a variety of other games that you think count as "old school" because of the publication date, I've already told you that the word has come to mean something other than a historical category.  I get that you want the definition to be different and you can advocate for that and use it in a broader fashion and do your part to contribute your alternate usage, but don't be surprised when you end up talking about something other than what people mean by the term when it comes to RPGs.

I'll tell you what. I'll use the actual definition, you and some others will use the false definition....and I'll occasionally bother to point out when you or someone else insists on misinforming people.

Quote from: NathanIWI find your offense at the actions of the "post modern lying al Qaeda hivemind zealot grogs" to be hilarious and ridiculous.  You present them as evil manipulators of language trying to foist a harmful agenda onto the hobby when in actuality they were people interested in a specific approach to play who simply didn't want the term they were using to become muddied from the sheer variety of play that occurred in the early days of the hobby.

I put gaming "Al-Qaeda" in quotes. Do you know why? As a joke, because I'm not even the one who came up with that term. I don't think Kellri came up with this phrase, but he used it....as a joke/exaggeration of a subset of the retro gaming movement:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=14272&page=6

Quote from: KellriIf anyone wants a piece of 'the Al Qaeda of the retro-gaming movement', c'mon on down to the Alehouse. This kind of halfwitted discussion will be just that much more grist for the mill.

Quote from: NathanIWThey had a particular approach to RPGs in mind about which they wanted to discuss, play, share and publish.  So they naturally excluded what didn't interest them.  And their desires struck a chord with enough people that their approach saw surprisingly wide spread adoption.  It was like there was something enjoyable about that particular subset of 70s play and it has become popularly associated with the term old school as a result.

To you they're the deceitful gaming al Qaeda who "LIE ... LIE ... LIE ... LIE ... LIE" :rolleyes:.  I would suggest getting over your persecution complex and start to accept that it might be about people talking about what they enjoy and wanting a term to describe it rather than some great evil they have inflicted upon you and the hobby.

Dude, a lie is a lie. Lying is not confined to rapists and war criminals. Intrinsically good people lie all the time, and still do things they shouldn't do. But if you point it out, people dig in their heels....and go apeshit. Sometimes ordinary people lie to others, and sometimes people instead lie to themselves......when reality becomes too much. If this situation doesn't involve blatant lies, then it is instead EXTREME SELF-DELUSION (which is highly possible). But it doesn't change the fact that this entire situation is complete bullshit.

I mean, if I'm remembering correctly....there are even some conversion rules for Boot Hill and Gamma World characters (for example) in the 1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide.

So if you try to tell me that a roleplaying game published in 1978 isn't "old school", then I will laugh at you.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;854522So if you try to tell me that a roleplaying game published in 1978 isn't "old school", then I will laugh at you.

From what I can see, "OSR" is generally used to an attempt refer to resurrection of a type of D&D primarily played 1974-77. It's not used to refer to non-D&D gaming of any period, and it's currently not even used much to refer to the kind of post-1978 D&D that was based on playing through modules, even though module-creation was the primary impetus for OSRIC. It's mostly about megadungeons (Blackmoor/Greyhawk) and hexcrawling (Wilderlands).

Not everyone even in 1974-77 was playing D&D in the manner imagined by the OSR, but judging by the material in early White Dwarf issues from eg Don Turnbull and Lew Pulsipher, it seems to have been fairly common in the small early-D&D community. But people playing Runequest and Traveller were often doing so specifically because they wanted something different from the things D&D offered, the things the OSR seeks to recreate.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;853293Why, yes, as a matter of fact I do. I have a lot of his wares in my collection, too; he's been very supportive over the past twenty years...

Awesome. I rolled up some characters using Different Worlds printing of EPT, and played D&D 3.0 with him when that came out. Sucks that they kept raising the rent on him. I keep meaning to visit his Wayzata store.

Sorry to hijack the thread everyone else.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;854522Ridicule and sarcasm are both forms of passive-aggression.

Both of those sound like regular old aggression to me.

QuoteAnd sarcasm is usually a dishonest expression of anger and contempt.

I don't understand what exactly about sarcasm is dishonest. It's unpleasant, and usually deliberately so, but it's not dishonest. Every culture and every language in the world includes sarcasm. It's a time honored method of displaying derision towards something.

QuoteOh, they aren't villains....but they most certainly attempted to co-opt language in order to fit their personal agendas in regards to gaming. It doesn't make them evil, but it's still an obnoxious thing to do.

The haven't co-opted it, they've opted it (I know, not a word). They had a chance to define the term in the public conciousness, as did your definition. Their definition succeeded.

QuoteYou're partially right; it was smart. They wanted and needed a form of branding, and they got it. This new definition wasn't particularly accurate or honest, but frequent repetition made it into the new reality.

Accurate will never be resolved, but please explain how it was dishonest? Because it doesn't accurately reflect "old" playstyles? Perhaps, and lots of "punk" rock wasn't made by actual holigans or whatever punk meant before the music style name was coined.

QuoteI'll tell you what. I'll use the actual definition, you and some others will use the false definition....and I'll occasionally bother to point out when you or someone else insists on misinforming people.

Words are social constructs. There's no "actual" definition. But if you want to keep insisting on this, it's your blood pressure, not ours.

QuoteDude, a lie is a lie. Lying is not confined to rapists and war criminals. Intrinsically good people lie all the time, and still do things they shouldn't do. But if you point it out, people dig in their heels....and go apeshit.

Or they disagree with you.

QuoteSometimes ordinary people lie to others, and sometimes people instead lie to themselves......when reality becomes too much. If this situation doesn't involve blatant lies, then it is instead EXTREME SELF-DELUSION (which is highly possible). But it doesn't change the fact that this entire situation is complete bullshit.

Which is more of a self-delusion, that "old school" means X because the consensus defines it as X, or the idea that you alone get to define its true meaning?

QuoteI mean, if I'm remembering correctly....there are even some conversion rules for Boot Hill and Gamma World characters (for example) in the 1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide.

Interesting, but relevant how?

QuoteSo if you try to tell me that a roleplaying game published in 1978 isn't "old school", then I will laugh at you.

Have fun.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;854789Accurate will never be resolved, but please explain how it was dishonest? Because it doesn't accurately reflect "old" playstyles? Perhaps, and lots of "punk" rock wasn't made by actual holigans or whatever punk meant before the music style name was coined.

'Punk' meant prison catamite. Sadly for Malcolm McLaren he was unable to maintain the homosexual element of the music genre for very long once it became popular.

ZZZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzzzz....

It's a good thing SL came to tell us the "actual" definition of old school when it comes to RPGs because the first half of the thread where people were largely on the same page because they were using a definition based on usage and having an actual discussion about game elements was just terrible.  We definitely needed saving from that.  Maybe next he can go help all those confused people who think digital has something to do with data when the "actual" definition is probably "related to fingers (digits).". That's what the word meant until the post modern computer al Qaeda coopted it for their own preferences.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;854829ZZZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzzzz....

+1


(I've seen a similar forum conversation about the difference between clips and magazines. There too one guy was adamant that his opinion is the only true concept and that language does not have the capacity to change through time. I was not entertained.

Edit - it would be wicked funny if Lamb is the same guy that started that one going! )

Quote from: Christopher Brady;853173But that's the crux of the OSR.  It assumes that everyone played the same way in the 'good old days'.

Not that I've seen. What it assumes is that everyone was NOT pushed to play the way the "new schools" of D&D push.

I would say that the real start of the "new school" was reliance on commercially made campaign settings...