Quote from: VectorSigma;624576(We can now proceed to argue about what constitutes a 'full setting' I guess)

Plate, bowl, finger bowl, glass, napkin, 2 spoons, 3 forks, 2 knives...

Wait... I did that wrong, didn't I?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;624580Plate, bowl, finger bowl, glass, napkin, 2 spoons, 3 forks, 2 knives...

Wait... I did that wrong, didn't I?

Wanna be Gamist!  Take your abstracted rules and go back to the Tea Party!
It's not 3 forks, it's Dinner Fork, Fish Fork and Salad Fork.

Quote from: estar;624569Well the point of the OSR is to play older edition D&D not something like them. With that being said, many people have stated they prefer to use OSRIC at the table as they feel it is a superior reference than the original books.

I'm sure that the original intention of the OSR was the strict celebration of TSR D&D. But, I think that point has shifted over the years, at least from the perspective of the OSR-consumer. When your average Big-Purpler thinks of the OSR I think they're more inclined to think of S&W, DCC, LL, and ACKS - in-print rules sets that are "cleaned-up" variations of TSR D&D.

QuoteThe mistake you are making is that you have to something like 3e or even D&D 4e in order to "innovate". Innovation comes in many different ways and forms.

Oh, no. No, no. I would never make that statement, or make that mistake. Trust me.

Let me be clear: I'm not a 3.x fan, or "4venger", or consider either to include innovative game designs compared to what has come before. I'm not an 'enemy' of the OSR; I own a number of OSR products - good and bad - and have read about every retroclone out there. Hell, I've played a lot more d100/BRP/RQ over the years than any version of D&D. IMO, one of the best innovations of OD&D came when Steve Perrin tweaked the hell out of it and produced Chaosium RuneQuest.

The innovations I'm referring to can be found in products like DCC, Crypts & Things (to an extent), and the various product lines from Sine Nomine. OSR products that have taken the core of OD&D/BD&D and produced something remarkable from it. Emulated a style of fiction, or tweaked the core to match up with a particular genre (like Other Dust).

There are a shit-ton of retroclones out there now that model whatever edition of TSR D&D a consumer wants to experience. And I don't think that the majority are "better than" their TSR inspiration. For the games to be better, IMO, they need to offer more than just better editing, clarity, and bolted-on houserules.

For my dollar (which is the one true American god), the OSR mags like Fight On! and Knockspell are far better than Dragon or other RPG mags from the early days of the hobby. I love Judges Guild's Pegasus, but I am getting a FAR greater ROI today from the OSR mags.

I would love for the OSR to develop a "legendary" adventure module that was so totally kickass that people talked about it on the forums with such excitement than thousands of players tried it out year after year.

That would rock. We don't have that yet.
 

Quote from: VectorSigma;624485I have to wonder how the "OSR" would react to a series of linked modules like 'Giants', though.  Would they scream 'adventure path' and run for the hills?

There would be mixed reactions, but if it was a good series, it would develop attention and a following.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;624516If everything is subjective then why talk about anything ever?

Can't masturbate to porn all day long. Sometimes a man's gotta give his schlong a break and just start typing arguments with people he's never gonna meet.

Quote from: TristramEvans;624537Plus, no OSR has yet to touch the awesomeness that was Planescape.

I have yet not to find a setting I enjoyed as much as Planescape.

That said, Carcosa rocks and its amazing fun.

Quote from: JeremyR;624546And the thing about Tomb of Horrors, while it has a reputation for being hard, it's certainly beatable. In his introduction to Return to the Tomb of Horrors, EGG mentions that the people he aimed it for (his players) beat it much to his chagrin, and that running at tournaments people sometimes came up with solutions he hadn't expected.

Hell yeah!

I think it would be difficult to measure--or beat--TSR's contribution to RPGs. And it's silly to suggest a bunch of amateur TSR fans have managed to outdo them in just a few years of sporadically making stuff in between handling their real jobs.

However, for a GM and group familiar with neither, I think there are a few OSR products that could totally pass the Pepsi challenge vs their TSR cognates in 2013 and not just because of advances in technology or changes in RPG fashion.

We don't get to decide the circumstances and conditions which we make stuff under--all we get to do is decide what we're gonna do with the situation we've got. And by that light, I think the OSR is batting about as well as anyone else--including many professionals.

Quote from: VectorSigma;624576(We can now proceed to argue about what constitutes a 'full setting' I guess)

As in a kitchen sink?

I do think the OSR--whatever the fuck that is--has produced more interesting settings than the ones TSR did in exactly the same way that homebrewed settings in the 70s and 80s were more interesting than the ones TSR did.

Quote from: ggroy;624591As in a kitchen sink?

Oh, I don't know, really.  I assumed somebody would quibble.  We're like that around here.

I'm not a big fan of either Greyhawk or the FR (the two setting products cited), although I've stolen from both of them over the years.

To make things more interesting, you might put it this way:

The core rules, the DMG and the Monster Manual (and the good Fiend Folio stuff like the Drow) are such an achievement they murderize any competition right out of the gate.

But if we assume those don't count and ask how much anyone managed to do with those building blocks per man hour: I think Games Workshop, Judge's Guild, TSR and all the production of amateur fans as a whole are in a dead heat.

Quote from: RPGPundit;624431James Raggi has been quoted as saying that the OSR is now better than "TSR", which I take to mean he's saying that the stuff the OSR does now is better than the games and modules TSR put out in the real old-school days.

Do you agree?

Perhaps James Raggi intended only to say his product was superior to TSR's but got carried away.

Such generalizations are only valid from the mouths of universally respected critics but the OSR is such a mediocre enterprise that it is not likely any time soon to attract the critical gaze of anyone whose instinct for good taste would be welcomed far and wide.

In the meantime we must make do, suffer even, the opinions of James Raggi and persons such as 'RPGpundit'.

Quote from: talysman;624510Could someone track down that Raggi post from a year or two ago when he made the claim about the OSR being better than the TSR and post the link here? So that maybe we could find out what he meant and what his criteria were?

OK, a couple pages went by, and no one posted the link, so I went and dug it up:

LotFP: osr-is-better-than-tsr

And, rereading it to refresh my memory, I see he's saying these things:

• Clearer language, formatting, and usefulness.
• The classic TSR modules are safe from being toppled from their perch, but there's a larger number of decent OSR modules... "Even the worst of the OSR published adventures are better than the worst of the TSR adventures".
• OSR supplemental material "certainly is better than the Treasure & Monster Assortments and the Geomorphs of days past."
• Dragon was better, but not exclusively focused on one game or a small range of games, while there are several D&D-focused OSR zines.
• More variety, because more publishers, compared to TSR trying to focus its brand.

There are some caveats to the first four. Yeah, because of technology, the OSR stuff can look pretty good and is sometimes designed to be more useful, but I'm not completely on board with the language of every OSR publisher. And comparing the best OSR supplements to the very first, most basic supplemental material from TSR is kinda dirty. And Fight On! is not as laser-beam focused on one type of game as Raggi lets on. But I think his main point is the last one, since he spends a little more time on it. He's saying the OSR is better than TSR because it has a wider variety of material, because it's not a single business, but a huge number of small press publishers, each doing what they want.

In that sense, I think he's mostly right.

Interesting that the post is from July of 2010 and predates a great number of interesting 'OSR' releases.

f.y.i. Will Graham is Kent.

Quote from: Zak S;624625f.y.i. Will Graham is Kent.

I'm not an expert Kent spotter, but that's what I figured.

Is 'Kent' an acronym? Is it a good thing?