OP, I agree. That's why I created Kaigaku. I wanted something that hit the same beats as L5R, without being L5R, which wasn't open content.

Quote from: estar;960139In that sense OD&D isn't broken at all and work well 'as is'

Exactly.  "I don't like/understand this" != "this is broken."

Quote from: cranebump;960013He jests at scars that never felt a wound.

Fabulous quote! Where's it from?

Quote from: Madprofessor;959763The only one true way in D&D is your way, which is why the OSR is such a glorious mess.

I absolutely agree.

All that really matters is what works at your own table.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;959740You know, in the 90's we would have called those 'D&D heartbreakers'. right?  And you know what makes OSR different?  Time and WoTC's 3e OGL.

I agree.

Palladium Fantasy was among the first OSR games back in 1982!

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959952People 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.

I only met Dave Arneson once, but after the game we grilled him like a cheese sandwich. I asked him why all the cool houserules he used in our game weren't in the original books, or in any of the many later books. His response? They assumed the players would figure it out.

I asked him if he had ever met human beings, because WTF??? Really??? The TSR crew put out hundreds of pages of rules from OD&D through AD&D and somehow a bunch of fun optional bits were just omitted. Plenty of pages for whackass grappling charts, but none for the stuff we experienced in Dave's game. It really was a super WTF moment.

But I know the real answer. They put meth in Wisconsin cheese.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959952Too 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.

I've had the pleasure of gaming with several RPG authors and its hysterical how several don't use the damned rules they sold us. Never had that experience with the board game, card game and minis game designers, but those damn RPG authors just hand wave the shit they wrote.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959952Oh, my word! The news that Dave and Phil loved to use figures in their RPGs was a horrifying notion,

WTF chirine!!! Are you trying to say people who played minis games, designed minis games and loved minis games would somehow involve their RPG playing with...minis??? Sacre merde!!

Somebody run this insane person out of town!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;959962I simply tell such people "You're an idiot.  Shut up."

You forgot to mention your peehole.

Quote from: bryce0lynch;960040hey smack of bitterness because no one will play their Weapon vs AC games with them anymore.

1) Weapon vs. AC is a boogeyman. It wasn't used in actual play by any groups I knew back when. I really liked the idea and wrote up some weapon rules years ago for S&W:WB using concepts in those charts by analyzing the extremes.

2) Getting players for an OD&D game is stupid easy.

Quote from: DiscoSoup;960152That's why I created Kaigaku.

Start a thread and pimp Kaigaku! With links!

Quote from: bryce0lynch;960040Well, you know, the OSR hates D&D.

I fucking HATE grognards. I can't fucking stand them and can't wait for them to all die off from their bitterness. On that day the sun will shine just a little brighter and the birds sing just a little more. I understand the irony in that statement.

(and I'm using a very specific definition of 'grognard' which is very similar to the one I use for my elderly relatives. They smack of bitterness because no one will play their Weapon vs AC games with them anymore. They demean and disparage anything new because it didn't suck Gary's cock. Anything different is bad.)

The most amusing part of this is that the comment that threw Bryce into a tizzy was made by someone who loves the OSR and is in no way a grog, but he presumed otherwise because clearly only a grog would say that the OSR is made up of people who want something other than D&D.

I only have two criticisms of the OSR, none of which cause me to look forward to the day when all of them die.

1. The purpose of a mark is to reduce confusion; "OSR" is only clear to those who are already intimately familiar with the gaming scene and understand the difference between DCC and LL and LOTFP, and what common thread winds through them.  For someone vaguely aware of it (and primarily in its first-gen incarnation that was much more traditional) the mark "OSR" on a product no longer reliably means the product is what they would expect it to mean.  It is essentially now something you already have to be a pretty die-hard gamer whose gaming boundaries extend beyond TSR D&D to reliably grok, which does have an element of counter-intuitiveness to it.  I couldn't, for example, tell someone who stopped playing 20 years ago that new product similar to what they liked previously could be reliably found by looking for an OSR mark.  Like things in RPGs have an unfortunate tendency to do, the mark has recurved into something primarily of use to those already immersed.

And bravo - it recurved because creative people used the mark on many products that they put on the market.  It was defined by what people did with it.  That doesn't mean a conversation of whether lumping traditional D&D in with it is value-added to traditional D&D from the standpoint of what a mark is supposed to do is badwrongconvo to have, although that conversation apparently upsets some people.


2.  It is thin-skinned - sensitive isn't a strong enough adjective - and hypocritical in certain ways.  People routinely say stuff that isn't like theirs sucks.  Only in RPGs is this met with true anger.  I have a brother who is a Cowboys fan, and another joint friend who is a 49ers fan.  They tell each other that their teams suck all the time, in much greater color than the groggiest grog has ever thrown at a game they didn't like.  (Although, to be fair, I don't recall either of them ever saying the world will be better when the opposing fandom all died).  Same with music, car companies - the list goes on and on.

This is different than saying these games have zero value.  A game can have great value to some and "suck" to others.  I hate pistachio ice cream.  It sucks.  It's in my freezer because other people feel differently.

Anyone reading this who spends much time on G+ surely has read multiple posts consistently voiced over years of very colorfully low opinion of forums and forum-goers; i.e., attacking the population and not their preferred game(s).  I have, and I don't even spend much time there.  Yet whenever someone on a forum is disparaging of them in any way they barge in and act like forum-goers are just awful because they don't try to get along.  Perhaps there is also a tinge of cowardice, as evidenced from saying on the others home court only that *ideas* should die, and then expanding that to the people themselves once a place of greater safety is presumed.

Whether or not the OSR mark as currently used is more useful than not for re-attracting lapsed gamers who have no clue of the internet scene, and who don't realize the games they used to play are reborn (and who probably aren't looking for Death Love Doom as the module to kick the tires with), is a valid conversation to have.

Quote from: EOTB;960161People routinely say stuff that isn't like theirs sucks.  Only in RPGs is this met with true anger.

May I introduce you to "football", also known as "soccer" to Americans?

The fans of opposing teams have been known to actually murder each other.

Not today's internet bitch "words equal harm", but old school real life stabby-stabby.

There is also a town called "Boston" where bars regularly erupt in brawls between fans of the same team.

RPGs fans are amateurs in the hate game. Call me when blood spills at GenCon.

The OSR doesn't hate AD&D (either 1e or 2e). There are plenty of fans of both. However, in actual play, many AD&Ders over the years streamlined their gameplay where B/X is probably a closer match to what they actually play.

Also, the mechanical differences from 0e to 2e are so minor in actual play. Major for forum wankery, but minor at the table.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;960048What I don't like are the people promoting the OSR as if it's the greatest thing ever,

The OSR is the greatest thing ever for fans of TSR era D&D.

For non-fans? Its not aimed at them. There are plenty of other games and communities for them.  

...where they can weep and play their weak ass games! :eek:

Quote from: Voros;960076Anyone reading James V. West's Black Pudding OSR zine?

Please start a Review thread and post a link!

Quote from: JeremyR;960130While Grognards might stick with the same game they play warts and all, it's harder to explain people who not only embrace the warts of their favored game, but glorify and embrace them the way White Box fans have.

I'm a huge White Box fan.

The greatest gift the OSR gave me was returning to Cleric / Fighter / Mage as the character classes without the Thief. It was such a revelation and added tremendous fun to my OD&D play.

And I play Thieves / Rogues regularly.

But the C/F/M Only play has been an incredible boon for me and my players. It has added a unique dimension to our Sword & Sorcery gameplay and challenged players to approach D&D in a different manner. The "thief role" gets spread out across the party making them behave more like tomb robbers.

It's a big selling point for players returning to my table because it so unlike "standard" D&D.

The OSR is the greatest thing ever for those who want new content, and don't care to go grovelling to WotC or Paizo. I like those companies' games too, but all the true innovation in D&D seems to be coming from the OSR. Maybe not so much innovative mechanics, so much as new settings, monsters, and adventures.

Quote from: EOTB;9601611. The purpose of a mark is to reduce confusion; "OSR" is only clear to those who are already intimately familiar with the gaming scene and understand the difference between DCC and LL and LOTFP, and what common thread winds through them.

True but how it could have been otherwise given the use of open content and the creative differences that where there from the beginning? One reason why OSR term got traction is that there used to be an OSR storefront on lulu and it was pretty open as to what maintainer accepted. But that not the only factor. The use of OSR grew organically. I stated numerous times that I used it because I like it. It liked the idea of a Old School Renaissance and I like how it played on the old TSR abbreviation. The most of the community made logos felt right to me. So I use the term to refer to what I do.

But my identity as a publisher is based on my name Robert S. Conley and my publishing label Bat in the Attic Games. That what is on all my add and promotions. The same for the other OSR publishers. And I have advise other starting out that while the use of OSR is useful, you need to establish your own name. In the regard OSR publishers are no different than the rest of the hobby/industry.

In short OSR as mark is useful but you can't rely on it.

Quote from: EOTB;9601612.  It is thin-skinned - sensitive isn't a strong enough adjective - and hypocritical in certain ways.  People routinely say stuff that isn't like theirs sucks.  Only in RPGs is this met with true anger.

Name one edition or one RPG that hasn't attracted vehement vitriol. The OSR is no more better or worse than any other family of related RPGs. Doesn't mean there aren't differences between various OSR communities. AD&D fans are little more focused on playing the game 'as is' while fans of OD&D are more easy going about kitbashing whatever to make the campaign happen. The B/X and BECMI fans are in-between the two extermes. Part of that is founders effect caused by how the communities got started, part is about what the editions specifically focus on.

But it inches not the gulf that is exist in trying to deal with the differences between D&D, Runequest, GURPS, Hackmaster 5e, Fate, etc, etc.

Quote from: EOTB;960161Whether or not the OSR mark as currently used is more useful than not for re-attracting lapsed gamers who have no clue of the internet scene, and who don't realize the games they used to play are reborn (and who probably aren't looking for Death Love Doom as the module to kick the tires with), is a valid conversation to have.

The mark does nothing, what individuals do is what matters.  Some individuals are inspired by the OSR mark, some are indifferent, and other think is shit. My opinion is that it does nothing to hinder those who dislike it use because of the open content foundation and the ease of distributing and communicating over the internet. That because it inspires some to publish, play, or promote classic editions of D&D that overall it is a win.

Quote from: Spinachcat;960163The OSR doesn't hate AD&D (either 1e or 2e). There are plenty of fans of both. However, in actual play, many AD&Ders over the years streamlined their gameplay where B/X is probably a closer match to what they actually play.

Looking back to the late 70s and early 80s and my experience subsequent years , that when it comes AD&D 1st edition that most people use B/X combat/action resolution with AD&D stuff (classes, monsters, spells, magic items, etc). And by most I mean what is likely when gaming with some random AD&D group.  It very possible to encounter by the book groups as well.

Count me as among the new players who found the OSR inspiring. I played a couple sessions of 2e in college, a very little bit of 3.5 in grad school, didn't even realize that Icewind Dale and Neverwinter Nights were based on D&D until years after playing them, and didn't really get playing D&D seriously until 4e.

The Peanut Gallery: Implying "4e" and "playing D&D seriously" can be used in the same sentence.

I switched to 5e about 6 months after it came out and discovered the TSR-era games and modules via the OSR. Since then, I've brought in lots of "new" (meaning "old") ideas into my 5e campaign that have really changed the feel and structure of the game. I even bring in occasional OSR modules and convert the to my heavily-house-ruled 5e. And no, the mark really isn't that confusing. It's pretty obvious from a product's description whether or not it belongs in my game.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;960208The Peanut Gallery: Implying "4e" and "playing D&D seriously" can be used in the same sentence.

Nothing wrong with D&D 4e as an RPG in my book. Did a great job of handling combat with a lot of tactical options in way that was approachable. It was just a complete break with prior editions.

I think the emphasis on organized play distorted things a bit in terms of what they could have done with it. I did run a short Majestic Wilderlands campaign and it was no better and no worse than any other non D&D rpg Fantasy Hero, GURPS that I used.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;960208I switched to 5e about 6 months after it came out and discovered the TSR-era games and modules via the OSR. Since then, I've brought in lots of "new" (meaning "old") ideas into my 5e campaign that have really changed the feel and structure of the game. I even bring in occasional OSR modules and convert the to my heavily-house-ruled 5e. And no, the mark really isn't that confusing. It's pretty obvious from a product's description whether or not it belongs in my game.

The great thing about D&D 5e that like the DCC RPG and Castles & Crusade it is own thing in using newer ideas for mechanics but the older material works very well with it. And it had some things that I swiped for my own OD&D campaign like advantage/disadvantage. The whole bounded accuracy thing made take a hard look at the different bonuses stuff had so I axed +4 and +5 magic items.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;959998http://www.tor.com/features/series/advanced-readings-in-dungeons--dragons/

The obtuseness! It burns!

Quote from: estar;960211The great thing about D&D 5e that like the DCC RPG and Castles & Crusade it is own thing in using newer ideas for mechanics but the older material works very well with it. And it had some things that I swiped for my own OD&D campaign like advantage/disadvantage. The whole bounded accuracy thing made take a hard look at the different bonuses stuff had so I axed +4 and +5 magic items.

It seems to me that one of the core features of the "Old School" is that every table was run its own way. 5e admits this kind of play to a much larger degree than the past two editions. Since there's not a lot of RAW, I don't have to deal with much if any player resistance. If a fighter smashes a door, and I have the goblins on the other side roll Dexterity vs the fighter's Strength to see if they're surprised...who's to say I can't do that? I've brought in TotM rules from 13th Age, realm management, reactions, and morale from the Rules Cyclopedia, and a vaguely-inspired-by-1e set of rules for hiring henchmen.

If this were 3.5, I'd have to parse through a pile of RAW DCs and checks to conclude that no, although you are a tough-as-nails warrior, you actually can't kick in the door and throw a pair of hand axes at the first orc you see. You didn't put enough ranks in Destroy Object: Doors to pull that off.