Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 10:00:07 AM

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2022, 07:53:34 AMOld or old school are all-encompassing terms, which can refer to anything up to roughly 2nd edition.

I have seen many a people reject AD&D+ as 'Old School' so just because you said it, doesn't make it clear/ common. He has his own vague term for a period thats vagely defined and so do you.

Circling back: Do I think the community at large is one of the worst in terms of lacking self awareness and arbitrary in definitions? Yes.

That has little to do with the definition of old school. There is a valid distinction to make between different generations of games, and different generations of gamers. There was a remarkable tone and rules shift between the OD&D, and AD&D. There was also a big shift in who played the game. And there was a huge shift in the supplements. It went from freeform and wild, to more by the book and commercial. You can also make an argument there was another shift 1985 or so, with Dragonlance and metaplot/stories. But if someone wants to make that point, they're probably going to make it clear they're using a different definition.

Circling back: Do I think you and VisionStorm are applying unreasonable standards by expecting jargon to always have one simplistic meaning, and are displaying a colossal lack of self-awareness by applying that standard to one group and not to any others? Yes.

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 10:05:52 AMIt like chocolate ice cream. To somebody who likes vanilla, chocolate ice cream is chocolate ice cream. But in practice chocolate ice cream has many variants depending on the type of chocolate used to make the ice cream. Which means at times it is important to make a distinction.

But I still can fall back to "chocolate ice cream" if I don't know that it's Rocky Road specifically, or chocolate fudge, chocolate mousse, etc. And nobody will question WTF I'm referring to. The same cannot be said about talking about Classic/Basic/Whatever the OSR draws from D&D. Hence, this whole exchange.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 27, 2022, 11:01:42 PM
Pat, you are wasting your time with the screaming dead sidhe ghost.  He's so convinced that 3E is Dagda's gift to gaming that he can't even being to appreciate anything D&D before it on its own terms.  You can't reason someone out of a position that they were never reasoned into to begin with. 

If someone doubts my statement, find any post on these boards that contradicts it.  I double-dog dare ya.

As someone who games with Shrieking Banshee I can assure you he has no love for 3e and hates 5e with a passion.

But you are doing a wonderful job of proving his point that the OSR community is toxic. According to you it's impossible for anyone to rationally try pre-WotC D&D and decide it's not for them... no they must be some sort of irrational brainwashed dimwit to not like.

But that's not toxic in your mind. Neither is Pat labeling people wanting to get clear terms related to the OSR jargon defined so they can more succinctly discuss it as "shit-posting."

And before you accuse me of it too; I don't like WotC-era D&D either.

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 28, 2022, 10:06:20 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 10:00:07 AMCircling back: Do I think the community at large is one of the worst in terms of lacking self awareness and arbitrary in definitions? Yes.

Nah, this whole exchange didn't prove that at all. You're just making shit up. 

Well speaking as someone who has been writing about the OSR and publishing OSR material myself. Along with dealing with the wider gaming community for over 15 years on explaining what it is I write about. I would say that Pat is pretty much in the ballpark. You trying to debate his points is not uncommon either. Not sure why it important to you and others not to acknowledge the distinctions between the different classic editions based on the experiences of those who actually played them.

And it doesn't help that the distinctions don't impact the usability of material between the editions. Tomb of Horrors will play somewhate differently if you ran it with OD&D 3 LBB only compared to AD&D 1e, but it not like trying to take a GURPS Dungeon Fantasy adventure, Ars Magica adventure or a Runequest Adventure and trying to run it one of the classic D&D editions. All things I have done.

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 28, 2022, 10:03:37 AM
I love how you accuse me of making up shit (which I didn't, but OK*) even as you make up shit of your own with additional accusations, like claiming that I've been "refusing" to use terms when I've been like three posts now asking WTF those terms are. And you still can't give me a definitive answer, given that you just said that "Classic D&D", for example, is a term used in a specific forum that can mean different stuff elsewhere (so much for "widely-accepted"). Which basically means that if I use any of these terms I'm almost guaranteed to step on a pissy OSR landmine about not using one of their dozens of sacred terms to refer to "Classic/Basic/Whatever D&D" correctly. But somehow this has been me "refusing" to do shit.

*and no, failing to use a term like "printing" correctly is not "making shit up". That's an error at best, or you being pedantic (more likely) at worst.

You've been hostile, petty, and nasty from your very first post, before I said a word on the subject. You don't get to play the aggrieved moderate.

You've lied, and you're lying again because I didn't say you were refusing to use terms. I said you're refusing to use the commonly accepted definitions of those terms. Which you are, because you said you were using OD&D to refer to B/X. That's now how the term is used.

And now you're demanding that people provide you with a single term to refer to both OD&D and Basic D&D. Which is ridiculous on the face of it, because nobody owes you a word with a certain definition. That's not how languages work. Words evolve because many people find them useful. Words don't appear just because you and you alone want them to. Though as I explained, Dragonsfoot has a term for that, but it's not universally accepted. You could stop being a colossal ass about everything possible, and use that term, and explain that's how you're using it when you bring it up the first time. Or you could just use two terms, like OD&D + Basic D&D. Either way works, and neither is particularly onerous. That's how normal people deal with ambiguity.

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 28, 2022, 10:06:20 AM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 10:00:07 AMCircling back: Do I think the community at large is one of the worst in terms of lacking self awareness and arbitrary in definitions? Yes.

Nah, this whole exchange didn't prove that at all. You're just making shit up. 

Considering that you two brought the negativity,  that's a bold statement.   When one person treats you poorly, you've probably met an asshole.   When everyone treats you poorly, you're probably the asshole...

Quote from: VisionStorm on February 28, 2022, 10:11:36 AM
But I still can fall back to "chocolate ice cream" if I don't know that it's Rocky Road specifically, or chocolate fudge, chocolate mousse, etc. And nobody will question WTF I'm referring to. The same cannot be said about talking about Classic/Basic/Whatever the OSR draws from D&D. Hence, this whole exchange.

Except OD&D isn't the "chocolate" in this. What Pat, myself, and other are pointing out that you are using "Rocky Road" to refer to "chocolate" ice cream.

To whit

Quote from: VisionStorm
I always use the acronym "OD&D" to refer to "Old/Old School" D&D (as in "anything before WotC took over, sometimes to pre-AD&D specifically), cuz TBH I don't have the faintest clue WTF to call pre-WotC era or "pre-AD&D D&D" when referring to it "in general" (and I've asked, or at least mentioned this before, and nobody addressed it: WTF do I call pre-AD&D D&D without the OSR getting nitpicky about terms?).

My answer to your question is that you call it classic D&D. That is any edition prior to D&D 3.0. If you are talking about pre-AD&D then you need to distinguish as there isn't a one size fits all term. Holmes D&D. OD&D 3 LBB only, OD&D + Supplements are all distinct versions each with their own quirks.

This can be seen in the fact that nobody in the OSR produces material for pre-AD&D editions as a whole. Instead they produce material for 3 LBB only OD&D, or Holmes D&D, or OD&D + supplement. Of the three OD&D + supplements, of which my Majestic Fantasy/Wilderlands material is part of, is the most supported and most diverse.

But OD&D + supplements is overshadowed by the support given to B/X D&D and AD&D 1e.  B/X fans produce a lot of rules supplements but adventures dominate. While adventures almost completely dominate the output of AD&D 1e fans.

BECMI doesn't get a lot of specific support as a lot of what make it distinct can't be replicated with open content. And AD&D 2e doesn't get a lot of support either again it distinct features can't be replicated with open content. Plus both suffer from the fact that they are not much different than predecessor in their core mechanics. (B/X and AD&D 1e).

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 28, 2022, 10:13:33 AM
But that's not toxic in your mind. Neither is Pat labeling people wanting to get clear terms related to the OSR jargon defined so they can more succinctly discuss it as "shit-posting."

They're shitposting because they've been relentless hostile. If they just had some questions or found some terms confusing, I would have been happy to explain. (And I did explain, despite the relentless shitposting.) They're the toxic shitbags, and so are you for defending them. Congrats.

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 10:05:52 AM

• OD&D 3 LBB + Supplements

...
OD&D + Greyhawk supplement is the first version that most would recognize as classic D&D. OD&D 3 LBB only feels like it own thing.

That's an important distinction. Greyhawk is the start of what most people would recognize as D&D. The 3 LBBs alone is a very different game. The break between OD&D and OD&D + Greyhawk is the biggest gap between all the old school versions of D&D.

Quote from: Pat on February 28, 2022, 10:49:37 AMThey're shitposting because they've been relentless hostile.

Well if you wanna play at 'not-official definitions', then shitposting is making posts in bad faith that exist to only get a rise out of people. Like if I said OSR folks are just virgins or loosers. I see myself as speaking bluntly and unflatteringly, but not hostile. I am not shitposting. You have called me a liar (for things I didn't say) and a shitposter. I have called you nothing.
The first time definitions became a point of contention, It became about because I said 'OD&D' which wasn't even important to the point I was making.

To continue: Another thing I dislike about 'Old School D&D' is all the of the unstated rules and assumptions. I can read ACKs and understand what the general idea of the game is, and what Im heading for. I can read WWN and understand what it posits as dangers and how to aproach problems and the rules it suggests if I dislike the way its doing certain things.

But 'OsD&D' I have been told has all these things that need to exist in the world for the experience to be smooth (and thats depending on the micro-edition and points of contention). The game doesn't make it known what sort of tone your going for and what is the internal logic of the world. When I have been informed by the community, it comes off videogamey and artificial to such a degree I can just play actual videogames.

....Anywho...

I still to this day do not think I understand what people mean when they say OSR. I haven't ever heard a cohesive definition. When I use the term, I tend to mean the older edition D&D clones which went in the flexible and stripped down direction rather than the rules-bloat/ nostalgia factory direction WotC took the product in the official products in, which gives OSR products superior power-to-weight over the official D&D materials, but can require more experienced roleplayers.

To that kind of game, I can only say it isn't to my tastes. I think RPGs tend to be long on the RP and the G element comes somewhere between underwhelming and outright bad. Mainstream D&D continues on in the "make bad gaming" direction, while OSR tends to minimize its role in the game. Neither are ideal; I like well-balanced RPGs, but I admit that the Game element tends to be poorly executed regardless of what section of the industry you look in.

I understand OSR is quite popular here, so perhaps someone can correct me.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 28, 2022, 12:29:18 PM
I still to this day do not think I understand what people mean when they say OSR. I haven't ever heard a cohesive definition.

Because there isn't one, it was coined and adopted as a result of discussion about older editions of D&D and spread from there. A key boost in it's popularity as a category term is when there was briefly a OSR Store front on Lulu. Plus people like like the play off of TSR and OSR and make up stuff like logos and the like. It was never a mark of any of the companies that published OSR material. In fact most of us, myself included, avoided it use in marketing due to its lack of clarity. But used it all the time in our posts  and forums discussions as a shorthand for either everything being done with older edition D&D or everything being done with older RPGs and older editions.

Quote from: Fheredin on February 28, 2022, 12:29:18 PM
When I use the term, I tend to mean the older edition D&D clones which went in the flexible and stripped down direction rather than the rules-bloat/ nostalgia factory direction WotC took the product in the official products in, which gives OSR products superior power-to-weight over the official D&D materials, but can require more experienced roleplayers.

To that kind of game, I can only say it isn't to my tastes.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 12:07:52 PM
But 'OsD&D' I have been told has all these things that need to exist in the world for the experience to be smooth (and thats depending on the micro-edition and points of contention). The game doesn't make it known what sort of tone your going for and what is the internal logic of the world. When I have been informed by the community, it comes off videogamey and artificial to such a degree I can just play actual videogames.

So here is the secret to the Old School Renaissiance.

You take this the d20 System Reference Document
https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35

Strip out all the newer mechanics. What left is a hop and a skip from any older edition of D&D. The remaining work isn't trivial but it is straightforward. You can share or sell the result as long as you adhere to the open game license.

Note there nothing in the above about HOW you use the result. Nothing about how to play, what to say and what not to say. Sure there is a culture of play to found but it always centered on a specific group of individuals who are fans of a edition. And all the different editions have multiple groups with their own take on how to use their favorite edition.

This bleeds into what is published resulting the diversity of material you see today.

There is no right or wrong way of doing this. The closest situation to right or wrong is if somebody makes a claim about it replicates X whether it a specific edition or how somebody played back in the day particularly Gary Gygax or Dave Arneson. In which case like any such claim, either the evidence backs their assertion, it doesn't back their assertion, or the evidence is too thin to support any claim.

The OSR is a tabula rosa because of its use of open content. The most one can say that certain play styles are published for, promoted more, and played more like the dungeon crawl. But they don't encompass all of what the OSR means. And because of digital technology and the use of open content, the different things people do with the materials constantly grows. And has grown to the point that the best one can do, including myself, is every see a thin slice of what everybody is doing with the OSR and its ideas.

Some including a certain owner of the site, contends that it is a traditional movement. A point I strongly disagree with it. There is no central point of control one can leverage to change what it is about. Not a forum, facebook group, or storefront*. Nobody has the power to set or change standards. If you published and never frequent this forum, it is highly likely you will never see the debates, issues, concerns, or good points being raised here. The same with Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, RPG.net, Enworld, and so on. I personally don't know any of the shit that goes down on Twitter that forms a big part of the Pundit's youtube posts.

What keeps the OSR centered is the fact the core of it is a group of hobbyists who are fans out of out of print D&D editions. If somebody makes a popular variant that uses say 3d6 instead of 1d20 that takes the current OSR by storm. The OSR isn't going to die. Certainly the people will change because most of them have gone off to play that new 3d6 variant.

Those edition will remain, the open content created based on the d20 SRD and those edition will remain, and anybody anywhere can pick that material and use it to realize their vision. Whether it is to play, promote, or publish. Thus a new group of hobbyist will emerge and the OSR will chug along like it always has.

Today OSR has grown so large, that it is pretty stable at this point. You have a slow and constant churn of people using the original 'as is', close variants, more radical variants, adjacent systems, and systems that focus on some of the themes but in a completely different way. For example my own work is divided into supporting a variant, my Majestic Fantasy RPG, that remains compatible with Swords & Wizardry. And a system neutral theme, the hexcrawl formatted setting and sandbox campaigns.

The OSR is what you put into it and make with it, nothing more and nothing less.

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 01:25:51 PMThe OSR is a tabula rosa because of its use of open content.

But the discussion was of 'Old School D&D'. I mean I even stated that OSR materials I liked (and play) where more refined in conveying tone and intention, while 'OSD&D' has unspoken rules.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on February 28, 2022, 01:35:36 PM
But the discussion was of 'Old School D&D'. I mean I even stated that OSR materials I liked (and play) where more refined in conveying tone and intention, while 'OSD&D' has unspoken rules.

Even back in the day, people marched to the tune of their own drummer and used the D&D rules 'as is' for campaigns with a different focus. I was one of them with my focus on letting players trash my setting.

The unspoken rules that are often bandied about are often just the preferences and prejudices of a particular group of hobbyists. Come at it with a different viewpoint then a different style of campaign emerges even when using the printed rules 'as is'. So if anybody trying to claim the banner of Old School then they are full of bullshit. The best one can say, is that this is how I played back in the day and why.

This also included one's preference for spelling things out ahead of time. Because I was deaf, I like to use as much of the system 'as is' because that made communication easier and more reliable. As I started out wargaming before I heard of RPGs, RPGs were simple compared to dealing with Panzerblitz, The Third Reich, or SPI's The Great War.

If there was a gap I plugged it. If the fix was detailed enough, I would type it out and paid .25 cent a page to copy handouts. I mostly played AD&D and the problem area were mostly in the initiative and what you can do in a round of combat. After failing to run things 'as is'. I jettisoned it in favor of you can do a half-move and a attack. With you being able to sub in other things for the half-move or the attack. (Like a full move for both).

This was all circa 1978 to 1985 when I ditched AD&D in favor of Fantasy Hero. I was not alone in my hometown in doing this. Everybody had their quirks in running D&D. Some were better at communicating this than others.

So there nothing to apologize for if you like a version that has things spelled out. While there is a lot of judgement calls to be had in my Majestic Fantasy RPG Basic Rules I covered every common thing that came up in my campaigns using those rules. In the volumes I am currently working, I am peppering the text with observations and comment with Rob's Notes on various rules and items. I don't people should have to guess at where I am coming from. I do think that most will chop up my work to use bits and pieces with other things so I try to make that process easy.

Quote from: estar on February 28, 2022, 02:26:00 PMSo there nothing to apologize for if you like a version that has things spelled out.

Well I think thats the most unflattering way of putting it I suppose.