One interesting thing is that it seems quite few people who enjoy the TSR-era books and OSR descendants have been playing and buying the D&D Fifth Edition. So, WotC is winning back custom it had lost, and to some extent the old-school stuff may also be a gateway for new players -- not just to "old D&D" by another name but to the current edition.

Reading the quotes earlier from Mythmere, and comments from EOTB, makes me realize what a relief, a breath of fresh air, the renaissance can be for people who have for years been caught up in trying to follow "new schools" that don't suit them. I haven't felt that pressure myself, having kept on mainly playing with people who treat the rules in the old "free style".

I do think the heavy-handedness is more from the player culture and that attitude toward the books than from the system designs, though the mechanical heft of the latter certainly is also a factor.

Another thing, depending on ease of conversion, is that OSR scenario material might be good support in an area in which Wizards might not want to invest much.

Quote from: EOTB;861667I 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.

Yes, this is exactly my experience. The label has given people (of all ages) the confidence to play and run public games of old editions & retro-clones, which they did not have before. Like I said, in 2008 I was running 3e D&D because I did not have the confidence to offer to run Mentzer Classic D&D, I remember "Why would anyone want to run that old stuff?" comments. The OSR changed that. Now I run what I want to run - Classic, 4e, Pathfinder, 5e... and I see other people do the same. I think the OSR has really opened things up.

Quote from: Phillip;861714Another thing, depending on ease of conversion, is that OSR scenario material might be good support in an area in which Wizards might not want to invest much.

Yes, the OSR gives me very useful support in my 5e sandbox game. I also use 3e & Pathfinder stuff in 5e, but OSR like (especially) Dyson's Delves and Liberation of the Demon Slayer tends to be denser in terms of more useful stuff per page.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;861710Show us on the doll where the OSR touched you in a bad way.

  Sure.

  The hostility of Grognardia, and apparently much of the OSR in general, to Dragonlance and I6 Ravenloft--things that really brought me into the hobby (albeit mostly through their spinoffs and ancillary material) and that I have a lot of fondness for, despite admitting their flaws. Closely related to that is the idea that that model of adventure somehow 'ruined' D&D, rather than merely providing a new model of play--at the possibly regrettable expense of other models, true, but that and abuses do not of themselves invalidate the idea.

  The condescension and contempt for other modes of play in Matthew Finch's infamous Primer.

  The repeated hostility of many fans--predating the OSR--to 2nd Edition, another formative influence for me, and the criticism was so focused on the 'lack of flavor' (read: no half-orcs, assassins, demons or devils) that it gives the impression that 'real' or 'Old School' D&D is about the dark, foul, grimy and vile side of the game. This is reinforced by my memories of reading Leiber and Moorcock about 20 years ago, and my more recent exposure to Howard. For an excellent example of this, see the original marketing blurb for Dungeon Crawl Classics--the one that starts "You're not a hero."

Quote from: estar;861606My using the analogy of playing chess is exactly on point when addressing criticisms that classic D&D is old and obsolete. Again so we are clear presentation of a set of rule can evolve and be improved but the game itself works or doesn't regardless of the increase of diversity in the larger hobby.

But to continue the analogy: how many people are playing OSR editions of D&D compared to 3.XE/4E/5E? How many people are playing pre-1500 variations on chess as opposed to the standard game?

D&D as a whole is still going through its years of flux and has yet to produce a standard edition that can stand unaltered like chess has for centuries. Even DIY D&D sees innovation taking place in rules sets like ACKS.

Partitioning D&D into "classic" and non-classic variations and then applying the chess analogy to only one part misses the point that to a large extent the general acceptance of standardised chess rules is about popularity, and specifically popularity and how that factors into finding players who understand the rules the same way as you do. An official chess rules set incorporating those elements generally agreed to be best for the game makes it simple to find other players and to teach the game. A few people can and do play newer or older chess variants, but they are a minority compared to the bulk of players out there. And a few games based on similar principles have achieved a similar level of popularity and standardisation, but they deviate from chess by such a wide margin that it'd take a historian to figure out where the point of divergence came (checkers).

If anything, 5E merits benefitting from the chess analogy more than classic D&D editions do, based on its sales, its extensive organised play network, and the fact that it utterly dominates the conversation. The OSR isn't the World Chess Federation, it's at best a lobby group that reminds people that some game mechanics and styles of past editions aren't necessarily deserving of consignment to the dustbin of history. You can see their fingerprints on 5E, but you can see all sorts of other influences too.

Applying the chess analogy to the OSR's preferred D&Ds implies that the OSR style is normative and other gaming styles and ideas are mere flashes in the pan with no longevity. It is true that nobody suggests that chess is a dead game because no changes have been made to it for years. But at the same time, plenty of changes have been made to D&D over its lifespan, both officially and unofficially, and indeed one good thing the OSR has done is revive the tradition dating back to the Complete Warlock of publishing wild tinkerings and variants of early D&D.

The best rebuttal to "(D&D edition) is a dead game because nobody produces new stuff for it" isn't "Buh buh buh BUT CHESS!", it's "Bollocks to that, people have continually produced new stuff for old editions of D&D over the years, even during the years when TSR was hostile to the notion. Just because you don't see shiny new products lining the shelves of your FLGS means nothing." You refute the argument by pointing out that it is not and never has been true, not by accepting its premise but saying "but that's a good thing!"

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;861742Sure.

  The hostility of Grognardia, and apparently much of the OSR in general, to Dragonlance and I6 Ravenloft--things that really brought me into the hobby (albeit mostly through their spinoffs and ancillary material) and that I have a lot of fondness for, despite admitting their flaws. Closely related to that is the idea that that model of adventure somehow 'ruined' D&D, rather than merely providing a new model of play--at the possibly regrettable expense of other models, true, but that and abuses do not of themselves invalidate the idea.

  The condescension and contempt for other modes of play in Matthew Finch's infamous Primer.

  The repeated hostility of many fans--predating the OSR--to 2nd Edition, another formative influence for me, and the criticism was so focused on the 'lack of flavor' (read: no half-orcs, assassins, demons or devils) that it gives the impression that 'real' or 'Old School' D&D is about the dark, foul, grimy and vile side of the game. This is reinforced by my memories of reading Leiber and Moorcock about 20 years ago, and my more recent exposure to Howard. For an excellent example of this, see the original marketing blurb for Dungeon Crawl Classics--the one that starts "You're not a hero."

I think this is all fair enough. If OSR advocates for stuff you dislike and denigrates stuff you do like, it's perfectly reasonable to dislike it. This is not at all like the people who lap up OSR product while denigrating the OSR.

Quote from: S'mon;861744I think this is all fair enough. If OSR advocates for stuff you dislike and denigrates stuff you do like, it's perfectly reasonable to dislike it. This is not at all like the people who lap up OSR product while denigrating the OSR.

  I will admit that I have a handful of OSR items--a few C&C products, mostly, from when I was looking for a good '2E lite', and a lot of the cool stuff off of the Engine of Oracles blog. But I think those are outliers from the small area where the OSR and I do manage to overlap.

Quote from: S'mon;861726Yes, the OSR gives me very useful support in my 5e sandbox game. I also use 3e & Pathfinder stuff in 5e, but OSR like (especially) Dyson's Delves and Liberation of the Demon Slayer tends to be denser in terms of more useful stuff per page.

I personally could go for density on the level of TSR's G1, but I guess there's a sweet spot between that and the stat-block spam I've seen in some 3e products. WotC seems to deliver a lot of padding from my perspective.

Nostalgia sure isn't the good vibe I get from what I've seen of things such as Deep Carbon Observatory. OSR presentation has gone from replicating 1970s visual design to very now and polished. The scenarios themselves seem also to be increasingly in that league.

Currently it seems the OSR especially stands out for darker material, the opposite of what many people associate with the 2E period. The total range of things, though, is impressive.

Like it or not, the flow of scenario material is to RPG system vendors almost like software to computer system vendors. The brain power of a community of talented hobbyists is a pretty powerful "network externality" compared with having just one shop.

That reminds me: What's the 5e licensing situation?

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;861742Sure.

  The hostility of Grognardia, and apparently much of the OSR in general, to Dragonlance and I6 Ravenloft--things that really brought me into the hobby (albeit mostly through their spinoffs and ancillary material) and that I have a lot of fondness for, despite admitting their flaws. Closely related to that is the idea that that model of adventure somehow 'ruined' D&D, rather than merely providing a new model of play--at the possibly regrettable expense of other models, true, but that and abuses do not of themselves invalidate the idea.

  The condescension and contempt for other modes of play in Matthew Finch's infamous Primer.

  The repeated hostility of many fans--predating the OSR--to 2nd Edition, another formative influence for me, and the criticism was so focused on the 'lack of flavor' (read: no half-orcs, assassins, demons or devils) that it gives the impression that 'real' or 'Old School' D&D is about the dark, foul, grimy and vile side of the game. This is reinforced by my memories of reading Leiber and Moorcock about 20 years ago, and my more recent exposure to Howard. For an excellent example of this, see the original marketing blurb for Dungeon Crawl Classics--the one that starts "You're not a hero."

Quite probably all true... I have no knowledge of any of those things.

They are the younger gamers' equivalent of being told that there is no value in playing any older game, and that any newer version must be better simply by being newer.

Both notions are bollocks.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;861742Sure.

  The hostility of Grognardia, and apparently much of the OSR in general, to Dragonlance and I6 Ravenloft--things that really brought me into the hobby (albeit mostly through their spinoffs and ancillary material) and that I have a lot of fondness for, despite admitting their flaws. Closely related to that is the idea that that model of adventure somehow 'ruined' D&D, rather than merely providing a new model of play--at the possibly regrettable expense of other models, true, but that and abuses do not of themselves invalidate the idea.

  The condescension and contempt for other modes of play in Matthew Finch's infamous Primer.

  The repeated hostility of many fans--predating the OSR--to 2nd Edition, another formative influence for me, and the criticism was so focused on the 'lack of flavor' (read: no half-orcs, assassins, demons or devils) that it gives the impression that 'real' or 'Old School' D&D is about the dark, foul, grimy and vile side of the game. This is reinforced by my memories of reading Leiber and Moorcock about 20 years ago, and my more recent exposure to Howard. For an excellent example of this, see the original marketing blurb for Dungeon Crawl Classics--the one that starts "You're not a hero."

I can dig that, but consider: Lucky for you, the OSR is just a non-organized bunch of hobbyists, not a Hasbro subsidiary.

For 20 or 30 years, the D&D publishing scene has been thoroughly given over to Hickman-esque stuff. From what I see of the official 5e line and of Pathfinder, that continues to predominate.

If even that current "epic heroes" stuff is too dark, there's a big pile of Dungeon magazine.

The OSR sure as heck has no say in what Margaret Weiss or whoever does with Dragonlance.

I've said this before; I don't know which "side" started with "your game is WRONG" rather than "I like something different," but Pandora's box cannot be closed.

Quote from: Phillip;861763That reminds me: What's the 5e licensing situation?

'Benign neglect' seems to be the description of the moment. Since ENWorld has an e-magazine for it and Troll Lord Games has just released a conversion of one of their adventures, I expect that will continue unless someone really crosses the line.

From what I've noticed, it's inspired a lot of people to play and create, so the OSR has been worth it, jerks included. A few jerks will always be around no matter what anyway.