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.

Everyone, on any side of any split in the community--be they movements, preferred editions, TSR-era vs. WotC, 3e vs. 4e vs. 5e, 1e vs. 2e, Gary vs. Dave, whether PHB default world should be GH, FR, Points of Light, Known World, etc. or anything else--can undoubtedly point to some time or another where someone backing another side said something both unfortunate and completely unfair.

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.

You say that as if no one does that anymore.  Sadly, it's still happening.

Quote from: S'mon;959795The Pope got deposed years ago, when he failed to get Dwimmermount out...

haha

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959908Agreed. 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...

What exactly was odd and annoying about some of these people's attitude chirine? Just curious.

Quote from: Voros;959943What exactly was odd and annoying about some of these people's attitude chirine? Just curious.

Well, I'd get asked about Dave and Gary's play style and how they used the rules. I'd describe how they did things in the game sessions I had played in, and that they were a lot less 'crunch' and a lot more 'fluff' in their play. (Same for Phil, by the way.) People seemed to be very put out by the way all three didn't worry too much about the 'letter of the law' with the rules, and were much more about the 'spirit' of the game. "Too hand-wavy", "Too loosey-goosey" I was told, and that since they were the authors of The Rules then their play Must Have Been using every paragraph and sentence that they had written. When I pointed out that their game play tended to the opposite of this, the self-described OSR people I was talking too got very cranky and upset - I was challenging the established mythology of game play, I gathered.

And the subject of the use of miniatures in RPGs. Oh, my word! The news that Dave and Phil loved to use figures in their RPGs was a horrifying notion, especially as The Great God Gygax had, in The Sacred Scrolls of Lake Geneva, specifically decreed that miniatures were not to be used in games. Again, in short, I was challenging the established mythology. Being there in those games was of no account, I was told; I had been - and was still having, to this day - BadWrongFun. In short, my time in the game hobby had been a compete contradiction of what the OSR stood for, and under no circumstances would I be allowed to join the ranks of God's Elect. and how dare I presume to talk about my heresies on the Internet.

It got pretty old, frankly, and I kept wondering why I was spending the time and energy on the Internet. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that I was better off closing out most - pretty much all, really - of my accounts and such. I have a lot more time for my hobby, and by being very selective about who I talk to and game with I have a much better time in it.

I suspect, from what I've seen and heard in the past five years, that I was unlucky enough to encounter some of the 'first wave' of the OSR, people who came across as self-centered, self-absorbed, and self-important folks who had very little idea about what the history of the hobby had been like for those of us who lived through it. 'Consultantgate', where some of them proclaimed themselves the gatekeepers of the hobby,  and who had the last word on what should be the moral tone of same, was pretty much the final nail in the coffin. A number of them are also the people behind things like Tor Books' series on the horrible people who provided the underpinnings and inspirations for our hobby, and which damned everything I happen to like along the way. (The thread on this forum about inspirational artwork is a good example of all they loathe.)

I don't mind them holding what positions they might have, but I do draw the line at them telling me what I must believe. As I say, it gets old, and I have other things I can be doing and other purposes I can put my resources to. I much prefer the people here - they may be opinionated and truculent, but they seem to me to be genuinely interested in and devoted to this hobby.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959952Well, I'd get asked about Dave and Gary's play style and how they used the rules. I'd describe how they did things in the game sessions I had played in, and that they were a lot less 'crunch' and a lot more 'fluff' in their play. (Same for Phil, by the way.) People seemed to be very put out by the way all three didn't worry too much about the 'letter of the law' with the rules, and were much more about the 'spirit' of the game. "Too hand-wavy", "Too loosey-goosey" I was told, and that since they were the authors of The Rules then their play Must Have Been using every paragraph and sentence that they had written. When I pointed out that their game play tended to the opposite of this, the self-described OSR people I was talking too got very cranky and upset - I was challenging the established mythology of game play, I gathered.

And the subject of the use of miniatures in RPGs. Oh, my word! The news that Dave and Phil loved to use figures in their RPGs was a horrifying notion, especially as The Great God Gygax had, in The Sacred Scrolls of Lake Geneva, specifically decreed that miniatures were not to be used in games. Again, in short, I was challenging the established mythology. Being there in those games was of no account, I was told; I had been - and was still having, to this day - BadWrongFun. In short, my time in the game hobby had been a compete contradiction of what the OSR stood for, and under no circumstances would I be allowed to join the ranks of God's Elect. and how dare I presume to talk about my heresies on the Internet.

It got pretty old, frankly, and I kept wondering why I was spending the time and energy on the Internet. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that I was better off closing out most - pretty much all, really - of my accounts and such. I have a lot more time for my hobby, and by being very selective about who I talk to and game with I have a much better time in it.

I suspect, from what I've seen and heard in the past five years, that I was unlucky enough to encounter some of the 'first wave' of the OSR, people who came across as self-centered, self-absorbed, and self-important folks who had very little idea about what the history of the hobby had been like for those of us who lived through it. 'Consultantgate', where some of them proclaimed themselves the gatekeepers of the hobby,  and who had the last word on what should be the moral tone of same, was pretty much the final nail in the coffin. A number of them are also the people behind things like Tor Books' series on the horrible people who provided the underpinnings and inspirations for our hobby, and which damned everything I happen to like along the way. (The thread on this forum about inspirational artwork is a good example of all they loathe.)

I don't mind them holding what positions they might have, but I do draw the line at them telling me what I must believe. As I say, it gets old, and I have other things I can be doing and other purposes I can put my resources to. I much prefer the people here - they may be opinionated and truculent, but they seem to me to be genuinely interested in and devoted to this hobby.

More things change...  I still see this stuff on this very site...

See, Chirine is more patient than I am.  I simply tell such people "You're an idiot.  Shut up."

Quote from: S'mon;959795The Pope got deposed years ago, when he failed to get Dwimmermount out...

   Although his bulls against things like Dragonlance certainly poisoned my view of the OSR for the longest time. The modules definitely have problems, and there are certainly reasons to be upset that the game's style changed. But it did change, those changes have a lot of fans, and claiming that those things were not only bad or not to your taste, but 'ruined' or 'destroyed' the game is going to come across as snobbery, One-True-Wayism or simply the grumbling of old men.

   The game has numerous different styles, and while the OSR may be truer in some ways to Gygax and/or Arneson's original intentions, the other styles have legitimate appeal and a place at the table. There are things I like about the OSR (the focus on lighter rules, actual play and customizability) and things where it's not to my taste (the disdain for mechanical differentiation between characters, the high lethality, and the general focus on the more gritty, grimy and lurid sides of fantasy).

Opinionated and truculent voices on this forum? I don't believe it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959955More things change...  I still see this stuff on this very site...

Again how does it impact your ability to promote, play, or publish in the manner that you see fit?

Quote from: estar;959984Again how does it impact your ability to promote, play, or publish in the manner that you see fit?

It causes arguments, creates discord and promotes edition warring at the table.

Instead of letting people play the game they want, and sharing ideas, we get people who stay entrenched and yelling at everyone who DARES suggest that another game could be fun too.  It bogs down discussion and discourse and mires it in pedantry and staunches the flow of creativity.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959992It causes arguments, creates discord and promotes edition warring at the table.

There goes one Irony-Meter.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959992Instead of letting people play the game they want, and sharing ideas, we get people who stay entrenched and yelling at everyone who DARES suggest that another game could be fun too.  It bogs down discussion and discourse and mires it in pedantry and staunches the flow of creativity.

Two Irony-Meters in one post, that's gotta be a record.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959952A number of them are also the people behind things like Tor Books' series on the horrible people who provided the underpinnings and inspirations for our hobby, and which damned everything I happen to like along the way.

What was that about?
Do you have a sample link?

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;959996What was that about?
Do you have a sample link?

http://www.tor.com/features/series/advanced-readings-in-dungeons--dragons/

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;959963Although [Grognardia's] bulls against things like Dragonlance certainly poisoned my view of the OSR for the longest time. The modules definitely have problems, and there are certainly reasons to be upset that the game's style changed. But it did change, those changes have a lot of fans, and claiming that those things were not only bad or not to your taste, but 'ruined' or 'destroyed' the game is going to come across as snobbery, One-True-Wayism or simply the grumbling of old men.

Also, in retrospect I wonder how much of this change was chicken, and how much was egg.

When Basic D&D got wider distribution (department stores) it also left the circles of wargamers.
The book trade distribution alone changed the audience from tactical, or simulation-minded people to those that were used to think in plots or stories, that came to the store for plots and stories. They came from a different angle, and looked for familiar elements to decipher what the game was "about".
And naturally those people applied for openings on the creator side of things.