Quote from: Christopher Brady;861485When they stop trying to capitalize on a so called 'playstyle' that didn't actually exist as they would like us to think it did, so that we buy their products.

"They" sound like terrible people (whoever "they" are).

Quote from: aspiringlich;861475Which explains why retro-clones are not a "pointless endeavor," as was asserted earlier. Since playing old school games is not an exercise in recreating the past but in playing a fun game in the present, I'd much rather use a clean and clear presentation of the rules I want to use than a pdf scan of the original, poorly (or at least not quite as cleanly and clearly) formatted version. I'll take Labyrinth Lord over B/X, or Swords and Wizardry over the LBB's, every time.

+1 The cleaned up versions are NICE.

Quote from: aspiringlich;861490"They" sound like terrible people (whoever "they" are).

Not really, they just have a belief that it's incorrect and the means to make money off of it.  But they do so by capitalizing on a sense of nostalgia.

Quote from: estar;861249I think people forget that the OSR has no defining purpose other than the fact that that a bunch of people found playing, promoting, and publishing for classic editions of D&D is interesting and fun.

Agreed. The whole "OSR Movement" seems to have taken a negative life of its own for some reason, but the basic notion of playing older edition D&D is still alive and well in my household. We play what we like, and I enjoy an old school vibe similar to the way I've played for 40 years.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861485When they stop trying to capitalize on a so called 'playstyle' that didn't actually exist as they would like us to think it did, so that we buy their products.

So what RPGs  labeling themselves as part of the OSR is trying to capitalize on a non-existent playstyle? I see a lot of new presentations a classic edition lot of rule systems based off what a particular author thinks is important like Lamentation of the Flame Princess, and Dungeon Crawl Classic. But not a lot based on the author trying to recreate a playstyle. The closest that I know about are several projects that tried to re-create the rules of Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign.

Frankly there is a family of complaints about the OSR that not supported by the work that is labeled OSR. People pro and con about the OSR keep reading more into what it is. The OSR doesn't advocate any existing playstyle or non-existent playstyle. Or advocate anything other than classic editions of D&Ds and similar games are fun and interesting to play.

Anything else is a result of the interest of a particular individual or group. For example the folks on Knights and Knaves who work on OSRIC are focused on AD&D. James Malislewski had opinions that were read widely. Philotomy wrote a series of musings on playing OD&D, I wrote about hexcrawl setting and sandbox campaign, and so on. Zak S wrote a unique view of a city with nifty tools to use to run a campaign. James Raggi combined his love of weird horror with classic D&D mechanics. The only thing common about all of us that we all used a classic edition of D&D as our foundation.

Quote from: estar;861506So what RPGs  labeling themselves as part of the OSR is trying to capitalize on a non-existent playstyle?

Because when you buy their games, they imply that the way they promote was the only way the game was played 'way back then'.  Which is great promotional screed, but inaccurate to say the least.  OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, et al, all operate differently because they make certain assumptions about how the game was played back in the 'olden days'.

Thing is, it wasn't all played like they claim it was, in fact, I'd posit that the way WE play now, and how old Grognards played back then, hasn't actually significantly changed.  It just seems like it, because we got older folks often yelling at everyone else to get off their lawn, metaphorically speaking, rather than actually embracing new things.  Unlike back then, when it was newer, and people wanted to try new things.

Didn't Gronan mention at one point that the reason that the Cleric came into being was because another player made a Vampire, and another wanted to play a Van Helsing type?  I could be mistaken on that.

Quote from: Warthur;861437Not half as silly as comparing the OSR to the real Renaissance in the first place.

This also seems like a really stupid complaint.

I understand people who don't like old-D&D not caring for the OSR. I don't understand people who do buy and use a lot of OSR stuff slagging off the OSR as being all about Internet drama (?!), rather than about the game products they're using!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861508Because when you buy their games, they imply that the way they promote was the only way the game was played 'way back then'.  Which is great promotional screed, but inaccurate to say the least.

Which games are doing that? I haven't noticed.
Again, I never played OD&D in the 'old days' and I'm betting neither did any of the relative youngsters I play DCC and LotFP with. We don't care if the 'Old School Renaissance' is actually 'Old School' or a 'Renaissance', we just like the product coming out of the corners of the hobby that we, rightly or wrongly, associate with the OSR.
I'm not really aware of any 'drama'... except that Tenkar is a bit of a fuck and some people, like Ravenswing, like to complain about it despite claiming no interest in it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861508Thing is, it wasn't all played like they claim it was, in fact, I'd posit that the way WE play now, and how old Grognards played back then, hasn't actually significantly changed.

It all depends on the "WE" in the equation.

As someone who played with lots of different GMs/DMs during the "way back when", I can 100% confirm there was no definite playstyle embraced by everyone. However, there were common ways of playing and less common.

Making your own world was common.
Detailing it highly was uncommon.
Houserules were common.
"Build mentality" was very uncommon.
Playing modules was common.
Arguing about rules was sadly very common.
Making up your own shit for your group was common.
...which made arguing about rules even weirder.

In my area of the world as a teen (US SF Bay Area), there was LOTS of excitement about new RPGs and trying them out. I understand that wasn't common in other areas where people rarely ventured away from AD&D, but for us, a large part of the hobby was trying out whatever hit the shelves.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861508Because when you buy their games, they imply that the way they promote was the only way the game was played 'way back then'.  Which is great promotional screed, but inaccurate to say the least.  OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, et al, all operate differently because they make certain assumptions about how the game was played back in the 'olden days'.

Thing is, it wasn't all played like they claim it was, in fact, I'd posit that the way WE play now, and how old Grognards played back then, hasn't actually significantly changed.  It just seems like it, because we got older folks often yelling at everyone else to get off their lawn, metaphorically speaking, rather than actually embracing new things.  Unlike back then, when it was newer, and people wanted to try new things.

Didn't Gronan mention at one point that the reason that the Cleric came into being was because another player made a Vampire, and another wanted to play a Van Helsing type?  I could be mistaken on that.

Yet again you refer to this mysterious "they". Who are "they"? Can you give an actual, concrete example of someone whose byline for their OSR product is "This is THE way it was played back in the day"?

Quote from: aspiringlich;861523Yet again you refer to this mysterious "they". Who are "they"? Can you give an actual, concrete example of someone whose byline for their OSR product is "This is THE way it was played back in the day"?

Or even something easier than that.  OSRIC is a free download, so presumably you should be able to point us to examples at no cost and little time to you (since you mentioned OSRIC specifically I'm assuming your examples are at-the-ready).

What parts of OSRIC depart from the text in the AD&D books, and do so in order to get you to play a certain specific way (also, presumably, not described in the AD&D rulebooks)?

Why can't I vote both yes and no and Mango?

Quote from: Spinachcat;861517It all depends on the "WE" in the equation.
In my area of the world as a teen (US SF Bay Area), there was LOTS of excitement about new RPGs and trying them out. For us, a large part of the hobby was trying out whatever hit the shelves.

Same here (Shit town, UK) our group couldn't buy enough boxed sets and rulebooks in the 80's.

Quote from: aspiringlich;861490"They" sound like terrible people (whoever "they" are).

Yes, "they" are.  Now hand him this tinfoil hat.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861508Because when you buy their games, they imply that the way they promote was the only way the game was played 'way back then'.  Which is great promotional screed, but inaccurate to say the least.  OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, et al, all operate differently because they make certain assumptions about how the game was played back in the 'olden days'.

Imply? Do you mean to tell me that you can't point to a specific statement in either Labyrinth Lord or OSRIC or their marketing where they stated that their games was the only way it was played back in the day.

You do realize that OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord are straight clones of AD&D and B/X. The authors of both write how they like the original games and both state that they hope their rules will spark further support. That as far as either goes for personal opinion.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861508Thing is, it wasn't all played like they claim it was, in fact, I'd posit that the way WE play now, and how old Grognards played back then, hasn't actually significantly changed.  It just seems like it, because we got older folks often yelling at everyone else to get off their lawn, metaphorically speaking, rather than actually embracing new things.  Unlike back then, when it was newer, and people wanted to try new things.

The problem is that your point is irrelevant when you can't point to a specific instance of a publisher saying that their game is how it was played back in the day.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861508Didn't Gronan mention at one point that the reason that the Cleric came into being was because another player made a Vampire, and another wanted to play a Van Helsing type?  I could be mistaken on that.

What that has to do with with somebody trying to play, promote, or publish for a specific edition of D&D? It is a interesting factoid however has nothing to do with what you are accusing the OSR of doing.

I make it easy and tell there is definitely one OSR RPG that claims to be a recreation of how it was done back in the day, Dragons at Dawn where the authors attempt to recreate the rules that Dave Arneson used in his Blackmoor campaign.

I will give you another Matt Finch who is the author of Swords and Wizardry has a separate book call an Old School Primer where he goes overboard on the hyperbole in comparing older editions to newer edition. Is in fact a bit insulting. But on the other hand his Zens of old school gaming do really work for some people including myself.

What you fail to realize that whatever the opinions of people who label themselves as part of the OSR are that it is grounded on published rulebooks that can be obtained and examined. Either what you labeling as OSR works with those rules or it doesn't. If it doesn't then it is not going to work for people looking to material to use with classic D&D no matter what label you slap on it.