Quote from: estar;861464games like chess that while old are enjoyable in their own right.

Dude, you don't still play 1E, do you? Chess 17.5E is waay better, and there are feats! :teehee:

Quote from: estar;861464So how long does it have to go on before it ceases to be a nostalgia movement. The publishers of material for classic D&D edition have been getting accused of this since the first product was released.  Now we are 9 years out from the publication of OSRIC. So what is it going to take before you will realize that just maybe classic editions of D&D are games like chess that while old are enjoyable in their own right.

Well, a good start would be the spearcarriers of the "movement" admitting just that.

The very fact that this thread discusses the "OSR," by acronym, and a "movement" suggests that they haven't.  Hell, man, you said it yourself, pretty eloquently.  Why are you asking me what it'll take for those who claim this to be some manner of "movement" to stop?  I'm no more a soothsayer than you are.  Beyond "when everyone who played RPGs in the 1970s croaks," I got nothing.

Quote from: Vile;861560Dude, you don't still play 1E, do you? Chess 17.5E is waay better, and there are feats! :teehee:

Looking at Loka I think I would have to disagree with you.

My point is:  It's all D&D, play what you like, there's nothing wrong with preferring the little brown books, the Red Box, White Box, or whatever edition/spinoffs.

I have my favourites, and I have no right to impose that my version is best.  It's best FOR ME and my friends, what's BEST for YOU?  Only YOU can answer that.

Quote from: Ravenswing;861561Well, a good start would be the spearcarriers of the "movement" admitting just that.

The very fact that this thread discusses the "OSR," by acronym, and a "movement" suggests that they haven't.  Hell, man, you said it yourself, pretty eloquently.  Why are you asking me what it'll take for those who claim this to be some manner of "movement" to stop?  I'm no more a soothsayer than you are.  Beyond "when everyone who played RPGs in the 1970s croaks," I got nothing.

Who are the spearcarriers?  I ask this, because it isn't as if this stuff hasn't been said.   So, are the people saying it not who you consider spearcarriers?

People say this as if it isn't out there...it's out there.  Is it because a specific person hasn't said it to you personally?  Is it because extending the concept of Snopes to using Google yourself is too much work?  I know this sounds snarky as fuck in a way that I don't really intend, but as often as people say the same untruths over and over it raises incredulity after a while.

Look, I don't want to play "Bring me a goddamn rock", so if you are open to having your point of view modified, let me know what will modify it, who needs to say it, what it has to look like.  

People like Christopher Brady say the same crap over and over: multiple times he's been asked to take the faceless "They" and put a name on it, or point out the source of his immeasurable butt hurt.  Each time he chooses to duck the question, because he would rather hang himself on his cross than come down from it.  And then when the next thread pops up he says the same bullshit again, hoping that he can get his narrative out there one more time.  Because, if you say something often enough, it becomes the conventional wisdom.  Pundit himself does the same thing with his utterly false clonemaniacs screed, because he knows his megaphone is loud and it isn't the truth that serves his purposes.

It's tiring.

So I've spent a little of my time pulling up quotes and posts. Real things said by real people with names and stuff.  Again, if these aren't the people you consider big enough names, I'll look up whoever you propose instead.  But these are the people I consider influential.  The excerpts address nostalgia, and also Christopher Brady's assertions of the intent behind retroclones, as well as the idea that the games assume some universal playstyle was used by every person to pick up a die for the first 10 years after Chainmail was published.

(all bold emphases supplied)

Quote from: Labyrinth Lord ForewordThe goal of Labyrinth Lord and other retro-clone systems is to make rules currently available, using a common reference, for third-party publishers to create gaming material that is not only compatible with the particular retro-clone system, but also with the system which it seeks to emulate. By doing this we hope to help build a market for games that have otherwise been allowed to fade into the past...

...Old-school gaming isn't just about nostalgia. We go back to these game rules not just because they might be easier to learn or play compared to their modern derivatives, but also because there is a fresh element to the game.

Quote from: OSRIC PreambleI think it’s fair to say that Matt wrote these words in fear and hope—fear that the document might not be well-received by the gaming public, balanced by the hope that we would achieve what we always intended: a revival of First Edition in print

Quote from: OSRIC Introduction and Purpose...The book is intended to reproduce underlying rules used in the late 1970s to early 1980s,...

...The reason for going back to square one and restating the underlying rules is simple It allows old school publishers (both commercial and fans) to reference the rules set forth in this document without making reference to any protected trademark...By using this document in tandem with the Open Game License (“OGL”) of WOTC, a publisher should be able to create products for old-school fantasy gaming and clearly refer to this particular rule set without violating the terms of the OGL

...Thus, in many ways, this entire book is nothing more than a tool for old-school writers

Quote from: Swords and Wizardry Foreword...What you hold in your hand are guidelines; this is one set of “rules” that has an internal integrity that makes it work. Is it the only way to play? Certainly not...

Quote from: Swords and Wizardry Complete Introduction...It is not an exact reproduction, mainly for legal reasons; but in the 1970s, no group of gamers played precisely the same version of the Original Game anyway.

Quote from: Swords and Wizardry Core Introduction...Unfortunately, the original rules are no longer in print, even in electronic format. The books themselves are becoming more expensive by the day, since they are now collector items. Indeed, there is a very good chance that the original game could, effectively, disappear.

That’s why this game is published.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1609334#p1609334

Quote from: PapersAndPaychecksA retro-clone is exactly what (OSRIC) is --- most people seem to view it as the original retro-clone, although that subject isn't uncontroversial.  (What was the first true retro-clone?)

It's not a for-profit alternative-to-the-original retro-clone like LOTFP, DCCRPG, C&C, etc.  It's meant as a gateway into the game Gary Gygax wrote, and as a source of cheap table-copies of the rules so you don't have to risk getting beer spilt on your precious 1e books.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=656442#p656442

Quote from: MythmereI just read through the pdf of OSRIC 2.0, and it's absolutely a masterpiece.  The layout, in particular, with the color art, is both new and retro at the same time, which is quite an accomplishment.  I think this may represent a real watershed, for the 1e community at least, in terms of putting forth - for new gamers - a physical, tangible representation of the game, that can be placed alongside the modern products as an example of what the current "old-style" gaming is all about.  Instead of looking like it's just about using old books salvaged from an attic - no matter how good those books are - OSRIC's physical presentation, quality, and rejuvenated artistic power present what can be perceived as a true, viable alternative to the rules-heavy new style of gaming.

I'm not marking this OT or putting it into the "Simulacrum Games" forum because as far as I'm concerned, OSRIC is now the de facto flagship of old-style free-form gaming in the wider world outside our niche.  Whether one likes it or not, Stuart has expanded the boundaries of the free-style gaming that defines our niche, and put it out there as an alternative to the mainstream.  OSRIC gives the outside gaming world a benchmark by which we'll be measured by outsiders, and that's good - because it goes a long way toward blowing apart the old "nostalgia" chestnut that's so often used to dismiss free-style gaming.

The renaissance in old-style gaming that began with Dragonsfoot/Footprints, developed further with the use of the OGL by C&C and BFRPG, then morphed into the retro-cloning strategy - is now in full swing with a true clone that can penetrate the mainstream and reintroduce a new set of gamers to the old methods of gaming.

Kudos to Stuart, and I say this from the perspective of the initial author whose work on OSRIC has very clearly been transformed into something utterly beyond the original, uneven draft I gave to Stuart years ago.  It's been turned from a sketch into a Rembrandt.

Whether one likes OSRIC, or the concept of OSRIC, or the strategy it uses to bring 1e into the mainstream, the 2.0 edition represents a fundamental potential for the resurgence of our style of gaming.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=344251#p344251

Quote from: MythmereI prefer monochrome, but this is one of the areas in which my preference is purely based on nostalgia.  In general, I prefer the old games because they're better and different from the newer stuff, not because of nostalgia.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=318578#p318578

Quote from: MythmereThe rule for MOST randomly affected events in AD&D is that there is no rule, no elegant single-application probability curve.  The whole thing that makes AD&D different from modern games is that the DM, rather than the rules, is the arbiter of probability.  

IMO this is superior to modern games, not because of nostalgia, but for side-by-side results, and my preference for the way AD&D assigns the probability roll to a person, not a book.  It keeps things fast, unpredictable, and sensible.  The DM can skip a pointless roll based on common sense without blinking an eye.

It's been pointed out that a host of BTB examples are provided for random-influenced events.  One spell rolls under an attribute with a d20.  Another uses 3d6 against the attribute.  There is the bend bars check.  There are saving throws.  There is a flat chance of falling into a pit on a d6; other chances expressed as a flat percentage.

The rule is that the DM decides what fits, based on common sense and game pacing.  That's a different game than one in which there are set rules, and a very different game from one in which there is a single, "elegant" method for many soultions.  The elegant rule, the "universal mechanism" is actually a gaming method that's the exact opposite of what defines the unique character of AD&D.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=280351#p280351

Quote from: Mythmere

Quote from: MrFilthyIkeI'll be the voice of dissent.  I think it has A LOT to do with nostalgia.

I get these great, warm, fuzzy feelings when I read my RC, my Gaz's, my Mentzer and 1e books.

Would I run a game of it nowadays?  Yeah, but probably as a one shot.  Most people around here play, and are famililar with 3e, and run my 3e rules to the wind anyway, so what's really the difference?  At the end of the day, the games are fun and the players happy.

But boy, I do love re-reading my old books.

  The notable difference, though, is that you - as someone who appreciates the nostalgia value more than the actual game differences - would only play as a one shot.  Those who actually play the old style regularly are the ones who see a distinct difference in the way the rules affect play, and prefer the older rules.  For those who play regularly, I think it's more than nostalgia.  I'm not saying you're right or wrong in your choice of rules, but as a one-shot-only player, you're not precisely in the set of players to whom he's addressing the question.  

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1608994#p1608994

Quote from: PapersAndPaychecks

Quote from: SammasterHuh? This is so far beyond making sense to me that I'm having trouble believing I'm even reading it. So in other words, the retro-clones are saying (in essence) "Don't play me, play AD&D. And if there are any disputes between our rules and the AD&D rules, AD&D is right"?

Don't use our product unless you absolutely have to, and the other product is better than ours? I mean, that's like Marketing 101 - Fail.  

Hi Sammaster.  My name's Stuart Marshall and I'm personally responsible for OSRIC.

I have said exactly this.

I'm not in the business of marketing.  OSRIC is not commercial enterprise, which is the reason why the product is free.

Hope this is clearer now

All the best

S

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1404875#p1404875

Quote from: PapersAndPaychecksPlease read the free download and make sure OSRIC is what you want before you spend any money on it!  OSRIC is a retro-clone.  It's organised differently, it's written differently and it may not contain your favourite obscure rule from the 1970s.  Things like weapon speed factors and classes like bard or monk are missing.  First Edition is best read in Gary Gygax's original prose.  OSRIC was originally intended as a vehicle for third party publishers to sell adventures and supplements, and that's still its main purpose.  The only reason we offer a printed version is because so many people asked us for it.

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1306092#p1306092

Quote from: PapersAndPaychecksDear community

Time for me to put my publisher's hat on and write an open letter to you all!

I've always said that the 1e ruleset is best read in Gary Gygax's original prose.  OSRIC's function is to entice you back into playing 1e and to persuade you to move on to the original books.  If it's an either/or choice between OSRIC and Gary Gygax's writings, go for the latter.

Many people do find OSRIC a helpful resource in play, for various reasons, and that's wonderful.  Please don't buy OSRIC to support me.  The margin on Lulu copies of OSRIC is less than one cent.  It's priced at the absolute minimum in order to make it accessible to people on a budget.  You should only buy it if you want a copy of OSRIC in print.

Now, as far as obnoxious members of "the movement", everyone knows that you can't have more than 5 people in a group without an asshole.  That's usually me, but not always.  But I find it a bit funny that people who don't like the playstyle commonly espoused by many old schoolers get grumpy that it is evangelized.

If you remember much of the 20 years between about 1985 and 2005, that play style was denigrated by just about every influential member of the RPG community with a platform, from the employees of Lake Geneva to the members of the RPGA and lastly to the majority of the gamers in your local friendly gaming store.

If you find it annoying that you can't avoid a now-vocal segment of old schoolers who are enthusiastically evangelizing a style of play that doesn't work for you, while simultaneously telling you that your style of play sucks balls and should go into the dustbin of history, and finding that fewer of the talked-about products contain material that works for how you run your table: congratulations, you should only have to deal with it for about 15 more years to get an idea of how really, really teeth-grinding it can get.

As near as I can tell, most of the people who bitch and moan about evangelizing rank-and-file old schoolers seem to be basically pissed off that we somehow escaped the reservation and are now buying houses in neighborhoods previously redlined to us.  Or that we couldn't bring ourselves to be "better people" in the sense of simultaneously validating play styles that don't work for us in addition to our own.  Well, maybe we should be.  But the last few decades where other play styles held the megaphone and the printing press didn't do much to create an atmosphere of ecumenism, so it is what it is.  

And it probably can improve.  I hope it improves.  But putting words in the other sides' mouths to make them look worse isn't going to contribute to that very well.

:hatsoff:
Well said, EOTB.

Reasons. I don't care about movements, groupings, or packs. I do care about product. I am glad that there's a wealth of product for older editions and games in other genres inspired by older games. I am glad that it, in part, got WotC off their butts to make a more classic friendly new edition and reprint/re-PDF old stuff.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861569My point is:  It's all D&D, play what you like, there's nothing wrong with preferring the little brown books, the Red Box, White Box, or whatever edition/spinoffs.

I have my favourites, and I have no right to impose that my version is best.  It's best FOR ME and my friends, what's BEST for YOU?  Only YOU can answer that.

No, that wasn't your point. Your point was that the OSR is some sort of scam meant to dupe people into buying products on the pretext that they represent the ONE TRUE WAY of playing D&D. It's only after we called you out on your bullshit by demanding evidence that you fall back on this milquetoast "My only point is that everyone has a right to play D&D as they like" tripe. No shit. Name me a single person in the OSR (whatever the hell that even is) who has ever said otherwise.

Excellent reply EoTB!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;861569My point is:  It's all D&D, play what you like, there's nothing wrong with preferring the little brown books, the Red Box, White Box, or whatever edition/spinoffs.

I have my favourites, and I have no right to impose that my version is best.  It's best FOR ME and my friends, what's BEST for YOU?  Only YOU can answer that.

No that has not been your point as Aspiring Lich points out. I will add that you are welcome to show how the OSR is doing it wrong by taking advantage of the same freedom that the OSR was built on. Using whatever edition build your own D&D. Get your vision out there for others to enjoy. It obvious you have the passion now put it into action.

I gave the Pundit the same challenge and the result was two good products; Arrows and Albion. Let see what you can come up with.

Quote from: Vile;861560Dude, you don't still play 1E, do you? Chess 17.5E is waay better, and there are feats! :teehee:

HOW HORRIBLEly awesome.

I like converting Lamentations of the Flame Princess adventures, does that count?

The chess analogy is nonsense anyway. Chess went through a long and extensive process of variation and refinement and so on before the standardised game was arrived at over the course of a period of time compared to which D&D's lifespan to date is a mere blink of an eye.

Quote from: Warthur;861605The chess analogy is nonsense anyway. Chess went through a long and extensive process of variation and refinement and so on before the standardised game was arrived at over the course of a period of time compared to which D&D's lifespan to date is a mere blink of an eye.

Sigh and exactly how long Chess has been in its present form? Mm will if you look at the rules since 1500 if you look at how competitive chess is played wth timed clocks and the like since 1851.

Either way it been around for centuries and yet where is the crictism that they are playing an led obsolete game and should be playing 3D chess instead.

My using the analogy of playing chess is exactly on point when addressing criticisms that classic D&D is old and obsolete. Again so we are clear presentation of a set of rule can evolve and be improved but the game itself works or doesn't regardless of the increase of diversity in the larger hobby.

Quote from: estar;861606Sigh and exactly how long Chess has been in its present form? Mm will if you look at the rules since 1500 if you look at how competitive chess is played wth timed clocks and the like since 1851.

Funny you should use that analogy; I've used it too to answer the "They haven't come out with a new supplement in two years the game is obsoleeeeeete!!!!" cementheads.

For those of you who don't know, the answer is that the last major rules addition (castling) was over half a thousand years ago, and the recognized rules were finalized about two hundred years ago.

Quote from: EOTB;861580(snip)

(furrows brow)  Dude, for someone talking about others acting like they've got "butt hurt," you're acting like a wounded bear.  Come on: is anyone telling you you're not allowed to play a D&D retroclone if that's what floats your boat?  No.  I'd suggest taking a chill pill.