I'll bite and check "Me! Me!" because the OSR's put out a ton of stuff I enjoy; got me to reexamine and better enjoy games I've always loved; and I don't really follow the drama. Sure, there are asshats, but aren't they everywhere?

On the other hand, if anyone's got a good mango chutney recipe, I'm listening. Is using green mangoes bullshit or what?

I voted me! because while there are a lot of good things that came out of the OSR, one of the big ones for me, was the re-evaluation of old systems and practices and viewing them in a new light.

Quote from: aspiringlich;861598No, that wasn't your point. Your point was that the OSR is some sort of scam meant to dupe people into buying products on the pretext that they represent the ONE TRUE WAY of playing D&D. It's only after we called you out on your bullshit by demanding evidence that you fall back on this milquetoast "My only point is that everyone has a right to play D&D as they like" tripe. No shit. Name me a single person in the OSR (whatever the hell that even is) who has ever said otherwise.

Scam is a little harsher than I wanted to put it, but the thing is, the moment you label something, anything, you're creating an exclusive thing -whether it's an idea, product, whatever-, you segregate it out by virtue of something.  And when humans segregate, separate and label, we subconsciously create an 'us vs. them' mentality.  In this case it's: Old Scool vs. New School, and people will gather to a side.

The word exclusion means 'to leave out'.  And in this hobby of ours, I personally think that's a bad thing, I'm about inclusion.  I want everyone to have fun gaming, and creating barriers and edition wars is not the way to go about it, in my mind.

And frankly, I'm surprised people haven't noticed that every single blurb that EOTB put for his 'demonstration' that all they ever talk about is how a certain edition is either missing in action, or in Papers and Paychecks for example, claims that AD&D 1e is the 'better' version so on and so forth.  Whether or not these people intended it or not, by calling OSR a 'movement' they're creating division among gamers.

I don't care if they want to recreate an older version of D&D that they had in their mind's vision.  What I do care about is what it's doing to us, as gamers, and it's just doing more edition warring.  We don't need to separate ourselves into little camps.  As someone who's also a video gamer, I see it all the damn time: casuals, hardcore, CoD heads, among others, when really all we're doing is picking a game we like.

Play what you want, none of it's better than the other, except for your tastes.

EoTB said it best, but for the tldr/snark response: If nostalgia alone was enough to please geeks then the Star Wars prequels would've been the best loved films ever

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861639Scam is a little harsher than I wanted to put it, but the thing is, the moment you label something, anything, you're creating an exclusive thing -whether it's an idea, product, whatever-, you segregate it out by virtue of something.  And when humans segregate, separate and label, we subconsciously create an 'us vs. them' mentality.  In this case it's: Old Scool vs. New School, and people will gather to a side.

So, if we happen to like a certain something, all we can refer to is "some edition or other (can't say which) of a well known fantasy game (can't say which)"? But then what of people who don't like "fantasy games"?

QuoteThe word exclusion means 'to leave out'.  And in this hobby of ours, I personally think that's a bad thing, I'm about inclusion.  I want everyone to have fun gaming, and creating barriers and edition wars is not the way to go about it, in my mind.

When you make it eminently clear that you DO NOT WANT to play with us, that you WOULD NOT have fun in our game, just who is 'excluding' whom?

QuoteWhether or not these people intended it or not, by calling OSR a 'movement' they're creating division among gamers.

Baloney. The division WAS already. A "New School" (by whatever name) was claiming that old D&D was shabby and 3e was excellent; and another New School movement was saying that 3e sucked (and old D&D sucked worse) and clamoring for the kind of Something Completely Different they (more or less) got with 4E.

Funny how the big sin is to like the old game rather than joining the packs trying to kill it.

Don't like "edition warring?" The ones you need to convince with your blather are the knuckleheads who keep in the first place churning out one 'edition' after another that is really a whole different game: the guys at Wizards of the Coast.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861497Not 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.

When you see them next, give them my best, but remind them that they still owe me $20.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861569My point is:  It's all D&D, play what you like, there's nothing wrong with preferring the little brown books, the Red Box, White Box, or whatever edition/spinoffs.

I have my favourites, and I have no right to impose that my version is best.  It's best FOR ME and my friends, what's BEST for YOU?  Only YOU can answer that.

That is a universally appealing statement that everyone can get behind that is in no way relevant to your previous points about nebulous "they"s.

Quote from: Phillip;861650So, if we happen to like a certain something, all we can refer to is "some edition or other (can't say which) of a well known fantasy game (can't say which)"? But then what of people who don't like "fantasy games"?

If you like OSRIC (and from what I've seen it's a pretty cool little system!) you can say "I like OSRIC." I won't argue or claim it's wrong to.  I'd like to think I'm a little more open minded than that.  It's an ongoing thing.

Quote from: Phillip;861650When you make it eminently clear that you DO NOT WANT to play with us, that you WOULD NOT have fun in our game, just who is 'excluding' whom?

If you want to use the word 'exclusion', I exclude people who are jerks, and jerks come in all editions.  As for those I disagree with?  Well, it's a case by case basis, really.  Some times, I can put my personal bias on certain systems aside, and play, other people, we just won't mix.  But in general, I tend to be willing to play with most people.

I'm willing to game with any system once, more if I like it.  But the system is not to blame here.

Quote from: Phillip;861650Baloney. The division WAS already. A "New School" (by whatever name) was claiming that old D&D was shabby and 3e was excellent; and another New School movement was saying that 3e sucked (and old D&D sucked worse) and clamoring for the kind of Something Completely Different they (more or less) got with 4E.

Funny how the big sin is to like the old game rather than joining the packs trying to kill it.

Don't like "edition warring?" The ones you need to convince with your blather are the knuckleheads who keep in the first place churning out one 'edition' after another that is really a whole different game: the guys at Wizards of the Coast.

Actually the edition warring, which is what this OSR thing is adding to, has been around LONG before 3e.  I've had local players, and friends, claim that they'll never change systems (Red Box, 1e, 2e) because the new one will suck.  Sight unseen, it will automatically suck.  That sort of sentiment has always driven me nuts.  I don't care if you don't like the system, but at least give it a fair shake.

And the fact of the matter is, I'm against Edition Wars.  And the OSR has managed to add another layer on it.  We don't need this label.  The games can stay, I have absolutely nothing against them, nor do I have the right to say that they have no right to exist, even if I did have something against them.

It's the label I'm railing (futilely) against, not the people, nor the products.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have an adventure to plan for this Sunday (Oct. 24, 2015.)

Quote from: Ravenswing;861618(furrows brow)  Dude, for someone talking about others acting like they've got "butt hurt," you're acting like a wounded bear.  Come on: is anyone telling you you're not allowed to play a D&D retroclone if that's what floats your boat?  No.  I'd suggest taking a chill pill.  

What does the ability to play a D&D retroclone have to do with anything that I responded too?  And yes, before OSRIC was published that was kind of exactly the point.  To head off any "there's no game police knocking down your door and taking your books" arguments: conceded; no shit.  

But that you would say that is evidence of the success of the methods and arguments used to date.  Prior to "the OSR movement", unless we wanted to remain essentially faceless, silent participants of the hobby; scattered into non-connected groups or segregated onto a couple of places like Dragonsfoot, then largely yes, people were saying that.  TSR editions were "dead games" - you have to know that this point was being thrown around like a frisbee - and absent remaining underground we were all supposed to get on the bus and be satisfied with (at best) games that used unified mechanics to loosely emulate a style.

People wanted more than that.  They wanted games-in-print to counter the "why would you want to play an old dinosaur, out-of-print, unsupported game" argument.  Because that matters.  Not everyone has time to 100% homebrew their own campaigns, so the penetration of the exact game(s) we wish to find existing players for, to bring new players in and grow the base, is going to be magnified or dampened by the commercial availability of product that is precisely intended for that.

Quote from: Christopher BradyThe word exclusion means 'to leave out'. And in this hobby of ours, I personally think that's a bad thing, I'm about inclusion. I want everyone to have fun gaming, and creating barriers and edition wars is not the way to go about it, in my mind.

And frankly, I'm surprised people haven't noticed that every single blurb that EOTB put for his 'demonstration' that all they ever talk about is how a certain edition is either missing in action, or in Papers and Paychecks for example, claims that AD&D 1e is the 'better' version so on and so forth. Whether or not these people intended it or not, by calling OSR a 'movement' they're creating division among gamers.

No, you're not about inclusion.  You're about not having someone exclude you or the way you like to play.  There's a significant difference.  It's the "why can't they be better people and not talk down other games" argument.  You are exceedingly quick to cast old-school advocates in a negative light, one that would make them look bad to readers personally unfamiliar with the population.  

As others noted, the division exists because two (or more) segments of the population use the games for entirely different and non-compatible purposes.  The Venn Diagram is never going to be a monocolored circle, so bemoaning that fact is a straw man argument.  

For people on the other side of the diagram from you, the older rules are objectively better at creating the experience they're looking for.  And they are going to actively recruit by identifying what that experience is, and pointing out how other styles of play fail miserably at producing it.  

There is nothing untoward or malicious about this.  If that message comes to someone to whom it is not suited, then it will pass by to no purpose.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861663And the fact of the matter is, I'm against Edition Wars.  And the OSR has managed to add another layer on it.  We don't need this label.  The games can stay, I have absolutely nothing against them, nor do I have the right to say that they have no right to exist, even if I did have something against them.

It's the label I'm railing (futilely) against, not the people, nor the products.

I disagree.  We absolutely do need the label.  While the online gaming population may or may not need the label (at this point of saturation), the gaming population at large is an iceberg, of whom the majority are not online and have no idea about any of this.  In my personal experience, having the label, and being able to point unconnected gamers to internet resources that cogently express and advertise play styles they though had disappeared as living things in RPG products long ago, has excited them and started them playing again.

The label is used for reasons entirely apart of upsetting the ecumenists.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861663I don't care if you don't like the system, but at least give it a fair shake.

You go right ahead and shake FATAL, and KABAL, and keep working your way through every RPG set ever published until you run out of money or life.

Then you can tell others to do it too -- and you'll still be out of line when you make it a demand.  

It's supposed to be a fun pastime, not a duty. Get a grip, man!

Commercially, the label is a substitute for the trademark ("Dungeons & Dragons") fair use of which (indication of compatibility) is given up as a clause of accepting the OGL.

There are too many different game line names to assume that people are familiar with them all, so an 'umbrella' brand is needed to indicate that the stuff is mutually compatible (about as much as various TSR releases were).

But guess what? Again and again, people start threads on forums asking advice on which "retro-game" to choose. If there were no labels, they would just have to be invented; vocabulary is the raw material of conversation!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861663Actually the edition warring, which is what this OSR thing is adding to, has been around LONG before 3e.  I've had local players, and friends, claim that they'll never change systems (Red Box, 1e, 2e) because the new one will suck.  Sight unseen, it will automatically suck.  That sort of sentiment has always driven me nuts.  I don't care if you don't like the system, but at least give it a fair shake.

The following is cool:

Bob: I've been playing B/X D&D for a while now, and it's just not doing anything for me. I like the idea of D&D, but that way of playing it seems lacking in a lot of ways.

Sam: Hey, you might check out Pathfinder. My friends and I play it and it's a lot of fun.

The following is not cool:

Mike: I've been playing B/X since the early 80's, and I still love it. I've got all sorts of memorable game sessions I can tell you about, and my current campaign is as fresh and enjoyable as when I first started rolling dice.

Christopher Brady: Have you tried one of the new versions of the game?

Mike: No, I don't see any reason to. B/X works perfectly well for me.

Christopher Brady: But you haven't given them a fair shake! How do you know you won't like those systems?

Mike: Whether or not I might like those systems is irrelevant. The fact is, I really like B/X. It's exactly the game I want to play, so I see no need to try other systems.

Christopher Brady: That sort of sentiment drives me nuts!

Yep, if you are already having fun up to 11 doing what you're doing, then anything that work differently is more likely than not to produce a different style of play.  So why invest time in something else?  

If a game advertises itself as doing "Y" to replace "X", and you like "X", saying "well, that will probably suck, then" is a normal reaction.  

It's not (usually) a value judgement on people who choose to play it.

Quote from: aspiringlich;861672The following is cool:

Bob: I've been playing B/X D&D for a while now, and it's just not doing anything for me. I like the idea of D&D, but that way of playing it seems lacking in a lot of ways.

Sam: Hey, you might check out Pathfinder. My friends and I play it and it's a lot of fun.

The following is not cool:

Mike: I've been playing B/X since the early 80's, and I still love it. I've got all sorts of memorable game sessions I can tell you about, and my current campaign is as fresh and enjoyable as when I first started rolling dice.

Christopher Brady: Have you tried one of the new versions of the game?

Mike: No, I don't see any reason to. B/X works perfectly well for me.

Christopher Brady: But you haven't given them a fair shake! How do you know you won't like those systems?

Mike: Whether or not I might like those systems is irrelevant. The fact is, I really like B/X. It's exactly the game I want to play, so I see no need to try other systems.

Christopher Brady: That sort of sentiment drives me nuts!

Fuckin' Ay.  You have it exactly.

Now, I'll PLAY damn near anything at least once.  But I'm damn picky about what I BUY!

Show us on the doll where the OSR touched you in a bad way.

So we can all line up and do it again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
And again....