Brad, all I can make of your utterly obscure response - a photo of a cat??? - is that you realise you cannot defend your position.

Quote from: Phillip;792582Brad, all I can make of your utterly obscure response - a photo of a cat??? - is that you realise you cannot defend your position.

You're trying to make some moral argument about the illegality of looking at some gaming books that 1) the author of said books knows about and tacitly approves and 2) the original IP owners have either abandoned or don't care enough to act. Further, I actually own the physical copies of a lot of those books. So, yeah, IDGAF.

Quote from: TristramEvans;792513And I also wanted to present the system in a way that showed how versatile it was applied to other genres besides bronze age Marvel supers specifically.

Well that's quite a different thing than what I was talking about. The system itself is quite cool so if you're writing something that is more generic, I can see the utility behind it.

I suppose I'm just more annoyed at "OSR" games that have no discernible differences from the original AND the originals are still available. On rpg.net, for instance, there are people discussing a 4th edition D&D clone. Why? You can get a copy at any gaming store right now.

In the field of computer programs, there is a long-standing ethical controversy as to what the law ought to be. In the USA, the law has become quite Draconian, making it (I gather) a felony merely to possess a tool that can defeat "digital rights management" regardless of the legitimacy of actual use. Meanwhile, "copyleft" licenses such those from GNU have seen increasing use by people who want legally to ensure the right to copy, share and/or modify software.

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

That a crime has become easy to commit makes it no less a crime. Mass murder is very easy with arsenals that go all the way to nuclear weapons, and there are technologies that can greatly assist a kidnapper, rapist, torturer, blackmailer, etc.

That I may have a lust for something does not entitle me to take it. I am not compelled to give or sell my property to you just because you want it, either. Why are these principles of justice?

A very practical reason in the case of a creator's control of creations is that, absent the incentive, many people will choose not to create, thereby impoverishing the commonwealth. As an example, consider the shortage of top-quality computer games that are free and open source, compared with top-quality tools for productive work. It's a lot harder to get together a team of people who value a video game enough to put in the work for no return but the game itself.

With Marvel Super Heroes, you can legally buy the product in the secondary market. [edit: I see you make the same remark above regarding D&D 4e.] That requires no denial of any right the publishers claimed, no denial of what is already well established.

It therefore does not offer an invitation to others to deny your rights - objection to which could then be dismissed as blatant hypocrisy!

Quote from: estar;792187I wouldn't say it meaningless but it is far more diverse than it used to be. And it still works if an individual uses it describe what they are doing with classic D&D or something similar.

But if OSR has simply come to mean 'old-school' then I don't see the point in the term. It's just a hug-box for people who enjoy a certain style of play, or a rallying banner for edition wars. And if you're part of the OSR simply because you play old-style D&D (and have always played old-style D&D), then that annoys me even more. I'll decide what 'movements' I belong to, thank you very much.

I mean, is someone who has collected and played vinyl records since the 70s part of the vinyl revival? Or just a guy who likes vinyl?

Quote from: Haffrung;792643But if OSR has simply come to mean 'old-school' then I don't see the point in the term. It's just a hug-box for people who enjoy a certain style of play, or a rallying banner for edition wars. And if you're part of the OSR simply because you play old-style D&D (and have always played old-style D&D), then that annoys me even more. I'll decide what 'movements' I belong to, thank you very much.

I mean, is someone who has collected and played vinyl records since the 70s part of the vinyl revival? Or just a guy who likes vinyl?

Nah, that"s silly. You're part of the renaissance if you're producing or consuming the stuff. If you've got no involvement, of course you're not part of it.

Being part of the phenomenon does not imply being a subscriber to a definition or ideology such as Pundit and others have bruited. They can claim members only of their factions, and only those who so declare themselves.

Quote from: Haffrung;792643I mean, is someone who has collected and played vinyl records since the 70s part of the vinyl revival? Or just a guy who likes vinyl?

Is the vinyl-fan buying products made during the revival? Then he's part of the revival as a consumer.

Is the vinyl-fan participating on forums with revivalists in a positive, inclusive manner? Then he's part of the revival as a member.

Or just listening to his old stuff and buying old stuff? Then he probably may not even know a revival is happening.

Quote from: Haffrung;792643But if OSR has simply come to mean 'old-school' then I don't see the point in the term. It's just a hug-box for people who enjoy a certain style of play, or a rallying banner for edition wars. And if you're part of the OSR simply because you play old-style D&D (and have always played old-style D&D), then that annoys me even more. I'll decide what 'movements' I belong to, thank you very much.

That the problem with terms like OSR, you don't get to decide that you are part of the OSR or not.

Because one of the its meanings, the meaning what people most often think of when they use OSR, is the group of people playing, promoting, and publishing D&D. Which include people who never stopped playing classic D&D, like yourself.

And the things that you and others that get annoyed at being labeled as OSR forget that the whole thing is suffused with the ideals behind the open gaming license. Open content usable by anybody for any purpose they see fit. From my experience in the OSR and within open source that beyond its practical side, people using open content develop an independent attitude that when push comes to shove they will say "fuck you" I will do it my own way. And because it all based open content there is no effective means of control.

This allows people to proclaim that the OSR about an old school method of design, that OSR is about blah and blah and blah. But the reality is that the OSR is exactly what the individuals involved want it to be about.

And when you look at the people labeling themselves as part of the OSR, myself among them, the large majority are doing thing revolving around a classic edition of D&D or something very similar. However because the use of the OSR has spread so far along with the number of gamers playing, publishing and publishing classic D&D, the number of people doing any one particular thing has also increased. In your case you see a lot of people proclaiming the OSR is advocating a style of play or a springboard for edition wars. But that a misconception just as much as saying the OSR is solely about classic editions of D&D. A definition of the OSR is only good if it describe what everyone using the label is doing.  A daunting task considering the kaleidoscope of individuals involved. The best I been able to do is describe what I have seen and remind folks that I know there is much I haven't seen or only heard of in passing.

You complain about the OSR this and the OSR that. But despite your complaints it managed to expand the amount of material available for use by a fan of classic D&D by at least an order of magnitude. There is also a similar increase in diversity. What the OSR is, is an example of what people do when they are free to truly use something in the manner they see fit.

Fate has a similar movement with a center resting on a different set of rules and a different style of play. Runequest also enjoys a similar renaissance.  And open content being what it is there is are overlaps as gamers who have an interest in both make their own material. For example Dungeon World.

You criticize the OSR and resent being included in it by others. But what is your real problem? Are you not able to do something in the manner you see fit? Is nobody playing, publishing, or promoting the particular style of classic D&D you like? If so what stops you from promoting, playing, or publishing what you like? Is it a resentment against labels in general?

Quote from: Brad;792592I suppose I'm just more annoyed at "OSR" games that have no discernible differences from the original AND the originals are still available. On rpg.net, for instance, there are people discussing a 4th edition D&D clone. Why? You can get a copy at any gaming store right now.

I can understand this sentiment, but in defense of the OSR (I know, weird from me, huh?), one of the good points of retroclones that are indeed clones of earlier versions of D&D is that they allow for new material to be published for these games.

Quote from: estar;792945That the problem with terms like OSR, you don't get to decide that you are part of the OSR or not.

Because one of the its meanings, the meaning what people most often think of when they use OSR, is the group of people playing, promoting, and publishing D&D. Which include people who never stopped playing classic D&D, like yourself.

So by playing and publishing a retro-clone of an old edition of D&D, I'm part of the OSR whether I want to be or not.

QuoteAnd the things that you and others that get annoyed at being labeled as OSR forget that the whole thing is suffused with the ideals behind the open gaming license. Open content usable by anybody for any purpose they see fit. From my experience in the OSR and within open source that beyond its practical side, people using open content develop an independent attitude that when push comes to shove they will say "fuck you" I will do it my own way. And because it all based open content there is no effective means of control.

This allows people to proclaim that the OSR about an old school method of design, that OSR is about blah and blah and blah. But the reality is that the OSR is exactly what the individuals involved want it to be about.

So by being part of the OSR (according to your first statement), I get to define what the OSR is.

Fine. In that case I define it as "What those other guys do, not what I do."

You can't have it both ways. You're trying to both define it as a global and fairly meaningless "everyone who plays older D&D editions" and a tighter "whatever you want it to be" at the same time.

Either it's global, in which case it isn't "exactly what the individuals involved want it to be about"; or different people use tighter and varied definitions, in which case it isn't global and people aren't simply part of it for playing older D&D editions regardless of whether they consider themselves part of it or not.

The two are mutually exclusive.

QuoteIn your case you see a lot of people proclaiming the OSR is advocating a style of play or a springboard for edition wars. But that a misconception just as much as saying the OSR is solely about classic editions of D&D.

But you just said it was up to us what it is! So it's not possible for whatever we say it is to be a "misconception".

Or is it only up to us what it is providing we agree with what you say it is?

QuoteA definition of the OSR is only good if it describe what everyone using the label is doing. A daunting task considering the kaleidoscope of individuals involved. The best I been able to do is describe what I have seen and remind folks that I know there is much I haven't seen or only heard of in passing.

Okay, so we're back to it being everything and therefore nothing again. The OSR is whatever we want it to be, providing we want it to be "everyone who plays older D&D editions, regardless of whether or not they consider themselves to be part of a movement".

QuoteYou criticize the OSR and resent being included in it by others. But what is your real problem? Are you not able to do something in the manner you see fit? Is nobody playing, publishing, or promoting the particular style of classic D&D you like? If so what stops you from promoting, playing, or publishing what you like? Is it a resentment against labels in general?

If we go past the contradiction between your "it's everyone" and "it's whatever you want" definitions, we get to the issue.

If it's "whatever you want", the majority of people (or possibly a loud minority - it doesn't really matter which when it comes to general perception) want it to be something that doesn't describe me. And want to be able to say "I'm not with them".

But you're telling me that I have to be put under the same banner as them whether I want to or not. It's not a case of resenting labels in general, but resenting being told that a specific label used by a self-identifying group that I dislike and want no part of applies to me and that therefore I am part of that group whether I want to be or not.

Quote from: Akrasia;791479WTF? The OSR 'failed'?!?  The OSR 'died'?!?

When did these things happen?  :confused:

As far as I can tell, the OSR is very much alive, and has been astonishingly successful.

I think some of these people mean to say "the OSR as I PERSONALLY wanted it to be".

Because 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).

The 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".

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;792990If it's "whatever you want", the majority of people (or possibly a loud minority - it doesn't really matter which when it comes to general perception) want it to be something that doesn't describe me. And want to be able to say "I'm not with them".

This. 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.

I personally have never had much interest in the material published under the auspices of the OSR. I don't have any ideological enthusiasm for the DIY ethos - I create a lot of my own material, but I also buy a lot of material. I certainly don't hate commercial publishers, and if I can't find something commercial that meets my needs, I'll make it up myself - no need to sort through the enormous quantities of chaff posted online looking for the occasional grain of wheat.

Also, I personally do dislike labels and camps and factions. Once people start belonging to factions, they typically shut off half their brain and criticize everything about rival camps, and give a pass to everything their camp says. I cherish my freedom to criticize anyone and everything without consideration of which groups they belong to or whose side they're on.

label =/= faction

The OSR is broadly about the renewed interest in old-school play, rules, and products. This abbreviation bears no other content.

If you do not believe in a specific deity, you are considered an atheist in terms of the belief in that deity. Even if you do not wish to be called an atheist, you still factually are one. There might be the the Secular Coalition, American Atheists, or the Atheist Alliance, but your non-participation in any of these doesn't change the fact that you still are an atheist.

I can't fault people for wanting no association with the term OSR, if there's always a guy trying to shoehorn an additional meaning into what is pretty clearly laid out in the name "OLD SCHOOL RENAISSANCE".

Quote from: estar;791488I never heard of any plausible scenario where a person or small group could dominate the OSR in the way that Ron Edwards and his clique dominated the Forge.  Even at the height of Grognardia popularity there were plenty of people ignoring or criticizing him and being successful in the OSR.

I'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".

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;792990So by playing and publishing a retro-clone of an old edition of D&D, I'm part of the OSR whether I want to be or not.

Yes because many people use it as a shorthand for those playing, publishing, or promoting classic editions of D&D.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;792990So by being part of the OSR (according to your first statement), I get to define what the OSR is.

Fine. In that case I define it as "What those other guys do, not what I do."

It is a democracy of the purest sort. You can declare that your definition above but unless people agree with it, it remains your just your definition. I labeled myself as part of the OSR because I work with classic D&D editions and I work with hexcrawl settings. I know that many other people, but not all, who also label themselves as part the OSR find my stuff useful.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;792990You can't have it both ways. You're trying to both define it as a global and fairly meaningless "everyone who plays older D&D editions" and a tighter "whatever you want it to be" at the same time.

I don't try to define the OSR, I will however describe it. Even the thing that I get quoted the most on.

QuoteTo me the Old School Renaissance is not about playing a particular set of rules in a particular way, the dungeon crawl. It is about going back to the roots of our hobby and seeing what we could do differently. What avenues were not explored because of the commercial and personal interests of the game designers of the time.

Is really an observation of the consquences of using open content and what people are doing with the fact that much of classic D&D being open.

And that many including yourself are missing the point of. The OSR is what it is because of open content. More than that is result of people using open content. It not an ideal or a philosophy or about anything other than what happens when people a truly free to use something they have a lot of love for.

Even the ideal of open content and open license is not a focus. It just what enables the rest to happen. Everything that is OSR is results from that some folks found that everything you need to create new material for classic D&D can be found in the d20 SRD which is under the OGL. That combined with the fact in the United States ideas and mechanics can't be copyrighted allowed clone ruleset to be created.

And because all these clone rulesets have the OGL at their heart it allowed other people to make hybrids or variants of whatever aspect of classic D&D and tabletop roleplaying they liked. Resulting in things like Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Blood & Treasure, and my own Majestic Wilderlands.

Because we are talking about people and not 2D caricatures who have other interests the diversity of the OSR expands to include things like D&D in other genre like Stars without Number, things developed on the same source material as D&D like DCC RPG, or things that are no way related to D&D but because it interests a OSR gamer gets lumped in anyway like the Pacesetter games.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;792990Either it's global, in which case it isn't "exactly what the individuals involved want it to be about"; or different people use tighter and varied definitions, in which case it isn't global and people aren't simply part of it for playing older D&D editions regardless of whether they consider themselves part of it or not.

I think the above is not a consideration for most people who label themselves as part of the OSR.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;792990But you just said it was up to us what it is! So it's not possible for whatever we say it is to be a "misconception".

Okay, so we're back to it being everything and therefore nothing again. The OSR is whatever we want it to be, providing we want it to be "everyone who plays older D&D editions, regardless of whether or not they consider themselves to be part of a movement".

Again it is a consequence of not only YOU getting to define the OSR but everybody else defining OSR. Your voice is no more or no less important than anybody else. So what the OSR is the collective action of what everybody doing.

However it is grounded on a set of out of print games. Classic D&D and other older games provide an anchor or a center around which everything else revolves. Stray too far from that then chances what that person is doing will NOT be considered as part of the OSR will go up.

If for whatever reason the majority of people decide that OSR means something else entirely. The group of gamers playing, publishing, and promoting classic D&D and other old school games will remain. And they will come up with another term to describe themselves. Personally I don't consider this likely but it could happen.  

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;792990If it's "whatever you want", the majority of people (or possibly a loud minority - it doesn't really matter which when it comes to general perception) want it to be something that doesn't describe me. And want to be able to say "I'm not with them".

But you're telling me that I have to be put under the same banner as them whether I want to or not. It's not a case of resenting labels in general, but resenting being told that a specific label used by a self-identifying group that I dislike and want no part of applies to me and that therefore I am part of that group whether I want to be or not.

In my experience, the average gamer don't think in terms of whether a game follows a particular design philopshy or promotes a specific style of play. What they say, to me at least, is that they like game X, dislike Y, and don't care one way or another about Z.  These gamers use OSR as a shorthand for the people playing,promoting, and publishing for classic D&D. When they are even aware of the term.

The vendors at then conventions I attend (Origin, Con on the Cob, CosCon, etc.) that use OSR as part of their marketing also has a large array of products for classic D&D edition. Although there a heavy dose of other products like Goblinoid Games Pacesetter line, and the DCC RPG. SO it isn't just about classic D&D although that where the focus is.

Again, the OSR is built on open content. Open content classic D&D is the direct cause of the kalidoscope that is the OSR, why you have debates on what it is, what it means, why people argue so vehemently about its definition. But the truth is all of the above because the freedom that exists for anybody do what they want with the material and for that matter the term OSR.