Quote from: yosemitemike;867453and nothing there makes me think that what he said means anything other than what the words say.

Well lets look what the words said then:

Quote from: aspiringlich;8664503.x and Pathfinder are OGL, but you don't see nearly the same amount of fan-generated material with those as with what's out there in the OSR.

Quote from: TristramEvans;866821REally? In the early aughts there seemed to be d20 products, blods, pdfs, webzines, online classes and support EVERYWHERE. That the system is 16 years old may have more to do with your perception that the new shiny OSR stuff is in more abundance.

Quote from: aspiringlich;866838I was living in a monastery in the early aughts, so I guess I missed that phase of d20 creativity.

So, in summary, AspiringLich said that in recent years there hasn't been as much fan-generated OGL material as there has been OSR material, but acknowledged that he missed the huge outburst of OGL material there was 10-15 years ago.

Quote from: yosemitemike;866953You must still live there then since OGL material continues to be published in large quantities today.  Either you have somehow failed to notice the huge amount of OGL material that has come out over the last 15-16 years or you are dismissing it all as not really creative.

"Not as much X as Y recently" does not mean the same as "Not very much X ever" or "X is all not good".

Quote from: JoeNuttall;867462So, in summary, AspiringLich said that in recent years there hasn't been as much fan-generated OGL material as there has been OSR material, but acknowledged that he missed the huge outburst of OGL material there was 10-15 years ago.

Unless he was actually living in a monastery, I'm not seeing it.  I assumed that was sarcasm.  Was he actually living in a monastery then?

Quote from: JoeNuttall;867462So, in summary, AspiringLich said that in recent years there hasn't been as much fan-generated OGL material as there has been OSR material, but acknowledged that he missed the huge outburst of OGL material there was 10-15 years ago.

"Not as much X as Y recently" does not mean the same as "Not very much X ever" or "X is all not good".

See how easy that was, yosemitemike? With just a minute's worth of reading, you could have saved yourself all that embarrassment.

Quote from: yosemitemike;867465Unless he was actually living in a monastery, I'm not seeing it.  I assumed that was sarcasm.  Was he actually living in a monastery then?

As is so often the case with assumptions, yours was wrong. I was indeed living in a monastery then.

Why yes you did, as you said three whole days ago in this very thread!

Quote from: aspiringlich;866838I was living in a monastery in the early aughts, so I guess I missed that phase of d20 creativity.

It's amazing what you can find skating around!

Context. The more you know!

Quote from: aspiringlich;867478As is so often the case with assumptions, yours was wrong. I was indeed living in a monastery then.

So, in context, it was the first of the two things I listed then.  Great.  Glad we cleared that up.

Quote from: yosemitemike;867563So, in context, it was the first of the two things I listed then.  Great.  Glad we cleared that up.

You just keep on thinking that buddy. If you like to cling to false beliefs, knock yourself out.

Quote from: aspiringlich;867565You just keep on thinking that buddy. If you like to cling to false beliefs, knock yourself out.

Quote from: yosemitemike;866982So either you missed all that material coming out or you don't count it as creativity.  

So it was that first one.  You missed that material  Got it.

Quote from: aspiringlich;866503Which is an assertion put forth by ... (looking back) ... no one. All that's been said is that there seems to be a good deal more of it going on among OSR gamers than among fans of modern systems.

Bwahahaha, that line is funny despite the Big War Of Unclear Contexts it lead to:D. FYI, it made both sides look bad, at least from where I'm standing.

Seriously, man*, you know what you haven't considered? That this might be because we need much less "extra material" to play other systems.
And this has everything to do with both d20 and TSR-era D&D being class systems, and nothing at all to do with the age of either:).

If you want a non-standard setting with a class system ("more modern" counts as "non-standard", too, d20 Modern be my witness!), you're best served by custom classes. So you need custom classes, and once you've created them, in writing, the easiest thing to do is to post them on a blog or something. At least, you can revisit the setting later.

Conversely, to play in the same non-standard setting with something like Savage Worlds or BRP requires...almost zero conversion at all. And since everyone has a homebrew, why should I even post it on a blog? Other than in system-less terms, that is? In which case, I might as well post it without mentioning that I developed it for an RPG...

*I assume your monastery wasn't a nunnery. Apologies if I'm wrong.

Quote from: misterguignol;866745The funny thing is that anyone who still plays Pathfinder/3.x D&D can also be accused of playing for ~nostalgia~ at this point since that game is now two editions "out of fashion."

If ~games are technology that advances~ (lol) then Pathfinder is clearly old tech and only played out of nostalgia, right?

The informal surveys of 3.5/PF players about moving to 5e I've seen mostly give those answers, from what I've seen.

"I didn't move to 5e because it's not enough improvement to warrant learning a new system".
"I didn't move to 5e because I haven't got the time to learn a new system, I know this one and it serves me well".
"I didn't move to 5e because it ain't got enough material to allow fun comboes, yet".
"I didn't move to 5e because it's got too much 4e left in its mechanics, and I hated that game, so it wasn't an improvement for me".
"I didn't move to 5e because the rules aren't free, and I don't want to spend that kind of money just to get rules again".
Only one of those can count as "nostalgia". Most of them count as "economics in action", meaning the principles of making a rational choice.
Make of that what you will;).

Given the existence of the Basic PDF, at least one of them is also factually inaccurate.

Quote from: Warthur;867729Given the existence of the Basic PDF, at least one of them is also factually inaccurate.

OTOH, for 3.5/PF fans, Basic is probably too lacking in character options.

Quote from: Warthur;867729Given the existence of the Basic PDF, at least one of them is also factually inaccurate.

Actually no, for way too many people if it's not the whole rules, it's a nice bonus, but doesn't count as nearly enough when you want to run a game;).

Quote from: Teazia;866353Dwimmermount broke the OSR.  

In what way do you mean that?

I have trouble seeing any situation where Dwimmermount 'broke' the OSR. It sure was a shitty situation for Autarch, but they're making a comeback now.
And more than anything, it SAVED the OSR from the bullshit warship of James Maliszewski.  They finally realized that the enormous lying opportunistic asshole had no clothes.

Quote from: AsenRG;867757Actually no, for way too many people if it's not the whole rules, it's a nice bonus, but doesn't count as nearly enough when you want to run a game;).

The basic PDF pretty much does have the whole of the actual rules though. It doesn't provide all the character options and whatnot but the actual procedures of play are all in there.

It certainly must be helpful for when not-enough-PHB-in-the-group type situations that I've certainly had with my preferred editions, but I doubt many of the intended audience want to play without the full "core" set of rules, if only for psychological reasons.