I find all the energy of creators in the OSR inspiring. I see a lot of that excitement on the DM's Guild. If anything, that enthusiasm is creating TONS of great stuff that you can use in any D&D game of any edition. This is a super fun time to be a tabletop gamer!

I may be wrong, but the way I see it is there is more continuity than change in D&D since the early days.

The key philosophical ingredient of the OSR is that D&D is *your* game, to play your way, with your rules, the way you want, which is exactly what D&D was meant to be, and what it has (almost) always been.  Back in the "golden era," or whatever, every table, every GM, every group played differently and had its own take on the game.  There were efforts to standardize: tournament play, 3rd and 4th editions, etc. but D&D has always been dominated by the creativity and preferences of the local group.  It used to be that all of those interpretations just collected dust in forgotten notebooks, beer-stained character sheets, and half-drawn maps. What makes the OSR different is that the ubiquitous individual preferences and local creative projects that have always been central to D&D are now shared through new means of publishing and information networking.  That's it.  The OSR is just a loose community of different groups, playing D&D as they always have, and sharing their personal interpretations and ideas.  

So, yeah, what estar said.

There are those that think that the OSR is one-true-wai-ism (CB), but it is really the opposite.  The only one true way in D&D is your way, which is why the OSR is such a glorious mess.

It's cool to see people bringing in other literary fantasy influences in the OSR. I see a heavy science fantasy and in particular Clark Ashton Smith influence kicking in. I've seen a few say this is just obscurity for obscurity's sake but I think it is people just doing their thing and trying to keep things fresh.

Quote from: Voros;959775It's cool to see people bringing in other literary fantasy influences in the OSR. I see a heavy science fantasy and in particular Clark Ashton Smith influence kicking in. I've seen a few say this is just obscurity for obscurity's sake but I think it is people just doing their thing and trying to keep things fresh.

Evoking Clark Ashton Smith is never obscurity for obscurity's sake because he wrote some fantastic stuff that is easily applicable to Fantasy RPGs.

Obscurity can be a benefit when looking for RPG inspiration. Part of the fun of the fantastic is encountering something new and strange. Ripping off Clark Ashton Smith gives your players something weird enough to give them thrill of the strange, yet it isn't so far from RPG fantasy tropes that players can't relate to it.

Quote from: K Peterson;959698Do you mean that all this time I was been duped into believing there was a Taliban and a Pope, who defined the boundaries, castigated the unworthy, and maintained the purity of the Way?

The Pope got deposed years ago, when he failed to get Dwimmermount out...

I had no idea Clark Ashton Smith was considered obscure.

Of course, I'm at least one and possibly two generations older than a lot of the posters here, so a good deal of my reading happened before the mid-80s fantasy boom.

He's not. Of the Appendix N-style names, he probably isn't in the first couple that people think of (that would probably be Howard, Leiber, and Lovecraft, plus Vance because everyone has heard of how much Vance influenced things, edit: and Tolkein), but he's in no way obscure.

Clark Ashton Smith isn't obscure.

But his name isn't on the Appendix N list. That's separate issue. But the fact that some folks are invoking him specifically for D&D play is a new thing for publishing. (Not your home game. Not how your group has played for 45 years. But for publishing.)

Fair enough.  I'm glad he's being rediscovered.

Quote from: CRKrueger;959748Don't worry, when it comes to anything even remotely on the topic of D&D before 2nd Edition, that's the pattern.  It's the Brady Curse, not his fault, really.

Self referencing?   How Justin of you.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;959820I had no idea Clark Ashton Smith was considered obscure.

Of course, I'm at least one and possibly two generations older than a lot of the posters here, so a good deal of my reading happened before the mid-80s fantasy boom.

I know you are desperate to be the 'old wise man' here, but your maths are off, again.

Quote from: estar;959705recalcitrant

 I was lost, but now am found...that's it.

Gronan is Old School Recalcitrant!

Quote from: Sommerjon;959836Self referencing?   How Justin of you.

Ok, you got me, that one was funny.

Quote from: Madprofessor;959763There are those that think that the OSR is one-true-wai-ism (CB), but it is really the opposite.  The only one true way in D&D is your way, which is why the OSR is such a glorious mess.

  Unfortunately, there were some unfortunate things said on all sides back when the OSR was getting started ("you only like that stuff because of nostalgia!" "Well, the stuff YOU like ruined D&D!"), and fannish communities of all sorts have a similarly unfortunate capacity for holding grudges.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;959850Unfortunately, there were some unfortunate things said on all sides back when the OSR was getting started ("you only like that stuff because of nostalgia!" "Well, the stuff YOU like ruined D&D!"), and fannish communities of all sorts have a similarly unfortunate capacity for holding grudges.

Agreed. Some of the OSR people back then had a lot to do with getting me away from gaming; their attitudes toward what we used to do back in the day struck me as odd - and annoying, too. On the other had, the whole 'consultantgate' flap did introduce me to Pundit and his work, and I got "Arrows of Indra" out of it. So, good things can come from bad.