Quote from: Haffrung;793021This. Before the term 'OSR' started being bandied around, there were people who played and talked about classic D&D, and about classic play modes using other editions and games. As I've remarked before, the online forum that renewed my own enthusiasm for old-school D&D (though I never had stopped playing) was the Necromancer Games forum, which was largely system-agnostic. This was before D&D archaeology became a thing, so people talked about how they played TSR not, now how Gygax intended OD&D to be played. There was no edition-warring, Gygax was never mentioned, and everyone simply shared their enthusiasm for dungeons, NG adventures, Judges Guild, and deadly old-school play.

The Necromancer Games forums was a great place to discuss older stuff. However other people in other places often got dumped on for liking classic D&D. Too many gamers would ridicule their interest in what they considered to be a broken obsolete game. The unfortunate thing is that some of the classic D&D fan grew overly touchy and aggressive to the point they were just as bad as those who mocked them in the first.

Quote from: RPGPundit;793029I'm willing to stipulate to "ignoring".  I'm sure some of the important people in the OSR just didn't say anything one way or the other about Maliszewski.  But "criticizing"?  I'd like to see evidence of someone who was considered to be within the OSR at the time of Maliszewski's height of influence who was actually criticizing him in any meaningful sense.  Because it seems to me that the people who were vocal about not buying his snake-oil were all, AT THAT TIME, people who had been labeled "not real Old-school".

I will have to do some more digging but this post in an example of Grognardia criticism during the height of his popularity circa 2010.

http://waxbanks.typepad.com/blog/2010/02/in-response-to-grognardia-gygax-on-dd-a-non-game.html

While digging I found this what I think illustrate the problem of getting even a small segment of the OSR working together.

http://www.rpgblog2.com/2009/01/quick-note-on-direction-of-old-school.html

My experience with this issue is why I criticize the idea that that any small group or individual can capture the OSR. I am well aware that in  history, movements of various types can be captured and turned away from its original purpose.. But the circumstances of the OSR make this highly unlikely. Namely because of Internet, open content, ease of print on demand, and the publishing history of classic D&D.

Quote from: RPGPundit;793019Because the OSR as I want it to be, personally, is fucking ruling the gaming hobby right now.  We're the ideological push behind 5e, and 5e was a tremendous success (as compared to the failure of the forge-theory-inspired 4e).

I don't about ruling the hobby, but the OSR as a whole can pat themselves on the back in showing how a "broken", "incoherent" rule system [insert sarcasm] can be used to make fun and interesting campaigns. That obsolescence and progress in tabletop RPGs is a far different beast than video/computer games.

And it great that the designers of 5e learned the right lessons from the experience of the OSR, among other things.

Quote from: RPGPundit;793029I'd like to see evidence of someone who was considered to be within the OSR at the time of Maliszewski's height of influence who was actually criticizing him in any meaningful sense.  Because it seems to me that the people who were vocal about not buying his snake-oil were all, AT THAT TIME, people who had been labeled "not real Old-school".

How about T. Foster?  (Didn't you characterize him as the Khmer Rouge of Old School, at one point?)

Quote from: T. Foster at K&KThat link [to the Dwimmermount Kickstarter] is icky. The "legendary" product we've all been breathlessly awaiting since 2009! All the excitement of a 21st century "new school" professional rpg author's thought-experiment to see if he could re-create something like how people played BITD in order to better understand the history of the hobby! A thrilling double-immersive pastiche! Something that literally everyone who has read the OD&D rules could create on their own! Everybody who contributed to that Kickstarter (over $25K raised? Really?!) deserves to be kicked in the junk :roll:

Quote from: T. Foster, againYeah, I realize I'm behind the curve on this. I honestly just hadn't been paying any attention, and until Shaman (you'll always be Shaman to me, Mr. Vulmea ) posted that link I hadn't seen what the actual fuss was about. I don't actually blame JM for this -- if people are willing to drop $25K+ on this he'd be a fool not to take it. My disgust is aimed squarely at the backers themselves (and, I suppose, whoever wrote that Kickstarter hype-page and is acting like Dwimmermount is some unique achievement in the history of rpgs and not the exact same thing that every single "old school DM" has stored away in their notebooks, because it was created literally by just following the advice in the OD&D rulebooks).

Quote from: T.Foster AgainSure, $10 for a pdf isn't too bad, I guess (even though with a copy of the OD&D rules, a set of dice, and some paper & pencils you could probably come up with something just as good or better on your own for free). $40 for a hardback is a little more dubious, at least to me, but I suppose for folks who normally buy hardback rpg books it's not unreasonable (though, OTOH, paying $40 up-front for a book that has yet to be written in an "industry" so chock-full of flakes and vapor-vendors is pretty much labeling yourself a sucker). What I'm really mystified by (and horrified at) is the ~200 people who've donated $50+ (including over 100 who've donated $100+). I mean, I guess I could see paying that much for something that was genuinely creatively brilliant or had legitimate historical-interest value, but something deliberately generic and vanilla and by-the-numbers; something created by a guy in order to help him "grok" the "old school" mindset (i.e. that pretty much by definition won't offer any sort of insights into that mindset, because it was a tool for discovery, not a demonstration of mastery); something that - at least until the hype-machine surrounding the publication kicked into gear with its convention, game-store, and G+ "events" - didn't even seem particularly well-received by its own players (I distinctly remember Grognardia blog-posts about how his players (of which, IIRC, there were only ever about 4 or 5) were growing bored with Dwimmermount and the "campaign" going on hiatus after about a year of weekly play)? What is so desirable about that to make anyone (much less 200 people) want to pay premium $ to support it? I don't get it at all :?

Quote from: Black VulmeaYou line 'em up while I slip into my steel-toes.

The Grognardia experience in general seems like a lot of second-hand bloviating about games never played and rules never used, '. . . but I liked the ad/read the article in Dragon!' It's like a young hipster explaining big-band music to a roomful of octagenarians who heard Tommy Dorsey perform live at Radio City.

All that stuff is from this K&K thread.  Actually, James used to post at K&K sometimes, although at one point he mentioned (on his blog, I think) that he didn't fit in there, very well, which definitely seemed to be the case, to me.  Eventually he got insulted, removed his account, and left.  Don't remember exactly when all that was; I never paid much attention.

I think for Pundit's misconceptions, I think this thread offers more than just Maliszewski (who is really only referenced indirectly, since he was on this steering committee being discussed).

Authors/editors talking about their intent for the close clone products?  Check.

Lack of community crossover between blogs and forums?  Check.

Wide spectrum of ideas about whether to stick to orthodox AD&D or branch way beyond that?  Check.

Lack of any sort of viable plan to control what was to be deemed "OSR" or not?  Patently obvious.

You can even see the seeds of why some people see the "OSR" is dead, or failed, in how people expressed their goals.

Quote from: RPGPundit;793019I think some of these people mean to say "the OSR as I PERSONALLY wanted it to be".

Not really, but a little. The OSR as I'd personally want it to be is exemplified by the Oldhammer community, an Old School Renaissance in its own right. The reason I personally consider the Renaissance over is because 1) D&D has returned to its roots with 5e, so "old school" isnt old school anymore, its just...um, "school" and 2) because its no longer a revival. Its been revived.

QuoteThe people who say stuff like "the OSR is dead" are one of two people:
a) people who were never in any stage of the OSR, hate the OSR, and have an active interest in wanting it to go away
or
b) people who wanted the OSR to stay small and obscure; like those idiots who love a band until it becomes commercially successful, and spend their time talking about how the band has sold out and how "I liked them before they got all mainstream".

I don't fit either category. Sorry, Mr. Ron Edwards, your oversimplified attempt to classify gamers into neat little groups whose existence revolves around your personal views fails again...

Quote from: TristramEvans;791518Many people think the same thing about The Forge.


And about Steampunk.

I'm not saying people aren't still creating and playing games that are/were/could be included in the "OSR" umbrella (of course most of us were already and never stopped), I'm saying it's no  longer a "renaissance". Its just the hardcore adherents doing what they've always done. Just like "Goth" is over, but you can still meet goths.


The Pundit is basically Disco Stu at this point.

Ridiculous.  The most interesting things the OSR has ever produced are being produced right NOW.  The boring stuff? That was from the Clonemania era.

The older stuff? Saying that's all the OSR was is like saying the Renaissance was only about re-translating the old greek texts.  Others would argue that the Renaissance only started when those old texts inspired people to create all kinds of new ideas.

Quote from: RPGPundit;793224Ridiculous.  The most interesting things the OSR has ever produced are being produced right NOW.  The boring stuff? That was from the Clonemania era.

The older stuff? Saying that's all the OSR was is like saying the Renaissance was only about re-translating the old greek texts.  Others would argue that the Renaissance only started when those old texts inspired people to create all kinds of new ideas.

It was and has always been that way. Unlike self-professed "OSR insiders", the rest of us got over trying to nail down definitions for outsiders and spent most of our efforts collaborating on useable and new gaming material for the games we like to play a few years ago. Most of that work continues in smaller forums and groups and not on personal blogs.

As EOTB and Philo both mentioned in another thread, James Maliszewski and certain other bloggers-of-note were never very popular (and still aren't) with the creative side of the OSR precisely because all they ever brought was a whole lot of critical social commentary and 'definition', but very little in the way of anything one would actually use to play an rpg. If they did, they made a very big deal about advertising it or asking for kickstart backers to pre-pay them for their time. Those kinds of people never understand or contribute to what I would call the defining characteristic of the OSR: material freely written and distributed out of a pure love of the game.

Anyways, 'nuff said. Time to get back to work.

Quote from: RPGPundit;793224Ridiculous.  The most interesting things the OSR has ever produced are being produced right NOW.  The boring stuff? That was from the Clonemania era.

The older stuff? Saying that's all the OSR was is like saying the Renaissance was only about re-translating the old greek texts.  Others would argue that the Renaissance only started when those old texts iinspired people to create all kinds of new ideas.

None  of which has anything to do with what I said. I made no comments regarding the quality of what was or is being produced. I dont hold up any specific time period as "this was when the OSR was great". Thats awesome that you like the stuff being done now. I dont know why your holding onto the term OSR as having any special meaning beyond the description of a time of revival when old-school style games went from being "fantasy heartbreakers" to being a refreshing re-look at what made old D&D great in the face of 3rd-4th editions's general shortcomings. I cant see any reason to hold onto it as a term beyond as a marketing slogan at this point. But its not, for me, an issue that I have any emotional investment in. Anyone is free to use the term how they like and I certainly wont jump in to stop them.

Quote from: Phillip;792596It is, however, one thing to advocate for a purchaser's possession of certain rights of ownership; quite another to claim a right to piracy!

Who is advocating piracy? If someone writes a book that goes out of print and subsequently DOESN'T CARE about said book anymore, how exactly is it being "pirated"? There is a huge difference between getting a bootleg copy of Skyrim because I don't want to spend $50 on Steam and playing Wizards Crown in an Apple ][ emulator...

Quote from: Brad;793330Who is advocating piracy? If someone writes a book that goes out of print and subsequently DOESN'T CARE about said book anymore, how exactly is it being "pirated"? There is a huge difference between getting a bootleg copy of Skyrim because I don't want to spend $50 on Steam and playing Wizards Crown in an Apple ][ emulator...

On one hand no, and other the hand yes. The law gives the holder of the copyright the exclusive right to make duplicates. The holder is allowed to license out that right under the terms they see fit. In the absence of a license means a third party doesn't have the right to copy period. Regardless whether it is out of print and unsupported.

You may feel that is ethically or morally wrong but that how the law is.

However the law will consider being out of print and unsupported for damages due to copyright infringement. The courts won't allow a copyright holder to turn around and sue everybody who copied Wizard's Crown when they haven't done anything for decades. This is where the myth of "losing" copyright comes from. What people losing is the right to sue for PAST infringement due to a lack enforcement. However once notice is given then the clock resets and folks will be liable for any future infringement.

Copying Wizard Crown is piracy but the consequences are virtual nil compared to copying Skyrim.

Quote from: estar;793336snip lawyer stuff

Yes, I get all that; I understand how copyright works. I'm simply saying I see no ethical/moral problem with it, so the law can s a d. There are plenty of stupid laws, and copyright law in the US sits atop the heap.

Quote from: estar;793336On one hand no, and other the hand yes. The law gives the holder of the copyright the exclusive right to make duplicates. The holder is allowed to license out that right under the terms they see fit. In the absence of a license means a third party doesn't have the right to copy period. Regardless whether it is out of print and unsupported.

You may feel that is ethically or morally wrong but that how the law is.

However the law will consider being out of print and unsupported for damages due to copyright infringement. The courts won't allow a copyright holder to turn around and sue everybody who copied Wizard's Crown when they haven't done anything for decades. This is where the myth of "losing" copyright comes from. What people losing is the right to sue for PAST infringement due to a lack enforcement. However once notice is given then the clock resets and folks will be liable for any future infringement.

Copying Wizard Crown is piracy but the consequences are virtual nil compared to copying Skyrim.

The deal with FASERIP is, the rights were jointly held by TSR and Marvel, Inc; two companies that no longer exist. Marvel's trademarks have since passed on twice, TSR's trademark in that particular game has not. Marvel 2.0 has given approval for the game to be freeware, but did so before Disney bought them out. TSR doesnt have a say in the matter anymore. Thats the whole of it.

The real question is...who cares? The stuff's been free for well over a decade. The only basis for not downloading it is some sort of odd ethical objection that isnt based on any theory of ethics I'm familiar with. No one can be prosecuted for using the site, no one can get sued. If Disney closes the sites, then it does. Until then, its a valuable resource worth making use of.

Quote from: Brad;793338Yes, I get all that; I understand how copyright works. I'm simply saying I see no ethical/moral problem with it, so the law can s a d. There are plenty of stupid laws, and copyright law in the US sits atop the heap.

I have no problem with US Copyright Law. Only with the length of the term which is currently Life + 95 years in the US and Life+75 for much of the rest of the world. I think the older term of 27 years plus 27 years if renewed was adequate incentive to get people to share creative works.

The current term length is counterproductive in terms of the goals of the copyright clause of the US constitution as the jacks up the number of orphaned works with no legal way of preserving them.

Quote from: TristramEvans;793352The deal with FASERIP is, the rights were jointly held by TSR and Marvel, Inc; two companies that no longer exist. Marvel's trademarks have since passed on twice, TSR's trademark in that particular game has not. Marvel 2.0 has given approval for the game to be freeware, but did so before Disney bought them out. TSR doesnt have a say in the matter anymore. Thats the whole of it.

If Marvel 2.0 give explicit permission for their IP that leaves only TSR copyright or the original author's copyright depending on how the project was setup. As for Disney they could always withdraw permission but as I understand when Company A buys out Company B all of Company B's contracts and license are still valid. Of course Company A could choose to not renew contracts. The only time where that is not true is if Company A buys all of Company B's assets but not the company itself. But I believe that wasn't the case with Disney buying Marvel.

Quote from: TristramEvans;793352The real question is...who cares? The stuff's been free for well over a decade. The only basis for not downloading it is some sort of odd ethical objection that isnt based on any theory of ethics I'm familiar with. No one can be prosecuted for using the site, no one can get sued. If Disney closes the sites, then it does. Until then, its a valuable resource worth making use of.

If both parties with a copyright interest give permission then you are right. There is no moral or ethical reason NOT to download the material. There is only a problem if you go beyond the scope of the permission.

As a side note none would be a problem if copyright were truly limited in term like the old 27+27. The current lifetime + 95 is a travesty and turns copyright into a form of censorship. Which was the original reason for copyright in the first place. So the crowned heads of Europe can control printing and publication i.e. censorship.

Now author ought to profit from their works and have legal protection. So I am for a legal monopoly on the right to reproduce a work and its derivatives as long as the term of the monopoly is truly limited.