Quote from: Jam The MF on August 25, 2021, 02:17:01 PM
Why must people argue about everything in life?

I've gone around the world, digging into D&D 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, 5e, PF 1e, PF 2e play test, Dungeon World, Dungeon Crawl Classics, and Lion & Dragon; only to realize that I'd rather play a reorganization of the Original pre-1e D&D "White Box" ruleset, with the additions of Ascending AC and a Single Saving Throw.  A $5 softcover ruleset on Amazon; "White Box Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game".

I have a huge library of books, but I can run a whole game out of a $5 book and my imagination.  That, is the beauty of the OSR.

I don't feel the need to criticize the rest of the OSR / RPG market.  Let people design what they want, buy what they want, and play what they want.  Freedom!!!

  Honestly, I think people (humans) have a need for challenge and conflict.  The vast majority of the population has been wrapped in bubble wrap for too much of their lives, so lots of that seeking conflict comes out in pointless arguments and disagreements that they take as personal.  Maybe it is something else, but I honestly feel it is sort of a spoiled, first world problem.

I can speak to my observations.

1) I don't think most RPG arguments actually are rooted in a difference of opinion. It's rooted in the persons involved. It's not necessarily personal; one or both people might just be assholes.
2) Sadly, bad people will often invoke terms like "story" or "fun" in order to exercise control over the game.
2a) Any conscious action necessarily fills the requirements of what makes a story; humans process experiences in the form of stories; there isn't much you can do that won't be a story.
2b) Fun is a mission, not a method. If someone says "don't play that way, it's supposed to be fun, so play my way" is probably more interested in controlling the game than having fun with it.
3) What gamers say they want often differs from what gamers actually want.
4) If you're not having fun, you're playing wrong.
4a) That means that, yes, there actually is such a thing as playing wrong.
4b) He who complains is likely not having fun and is usually the one who is playing wrong.
5) OSR is just one of those things that can be invoked as a bogie man by all manner of self-deceptive unfun gamers.
6) If you're surrounded by problem players, you're the problem. Whether that's because you choose poorly when it comes to friends, gamers, or online fora (Reddit is a red flag btw), or if it's actually you who are the asshole, the good news is that you can fix it.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 25, 2021, 04:14:11 PM
I can speak to my observations.

1) I don't think most RPG arguments actually are rooted in a difference of opinion. It's rooted in the persons involved. It's not necessarily personal; one or both people might just be assholes.
2) Sadly, bad people will often invoke terms like "story" or "fun" in order to exercise control over the game.
2a) Any conscious action necessarily fills the requirements of what makes a story; humans process experiences in the form of stories; there isn't much you can do that won't be a story.
2b) Fun is a mission, not a method. If someone says "don't play that way, it's supposed to be fun, so play my way" is probably more interested in controlling the game than having fun with it.
3) What gamers say they want often differs from what gamers actually want.
4) If you're not having fun, you're playing wrong.
4a) That means that, yes, there actually is such a thing as playing wrong.
4b) He who complains is likely not having fun and is usually the one who is playing wrong.
5) OSR is just one of those things that can be invoked as a bogie man by all manner of self-deceptive unfun gamers.
6) If you're surrounded by problem players, you're the problem. Whether that's because you choose poorly when it comes to friends, gamers, or online fora (Reddit is a red flag btw), or if it's actually you who are the asshole, the good news is that you can fix it.

Okay I don't want to make this a personal analysis of me but I'm a little bothered by some of your assertions here. Maybe I'm just not explaining myself properly. I'd love to find a group of friends who share my interests. But the reality is my interests are niche, and no one cares. And that's okay because I have actually found a group. They seem okay with me. And seem okay themselves. A lot of these points are made under several assumptions

1)the people you are gaming with are rational and self aware. This is not true for RPG gamers. We've all experienced That Guy, some massive autist who couldn't keep his mouth shut. I was that autist in my younger years. Nowadays I'm accused of being too quiet because I'm afraid to come off as obnoxious.
2)you have a decentralized community meaning that if one way of doing things you don't like wins out you can just move another community without issue. I have never lived anywhere with any more than 1 LGS. Usually 0 tbh. Everyone goes to the ONE place. And it becomes impossible to find games that aren't related to that one place. Maybe that's a big city american thing where you have multiple shops but we're lucky to have one per county in my country.  Sometimes it's just a choice of putting up with the bullshit or no games.
3) the community isn't obnoxiously pozzed to the point navigating the community becomes more work than fun and not worth the effort.

If you're really bothered that I mentioned Reddit I was just being general. I don't like Reddit all that much. Also I hate this assertion that "if everyone is an asshole you're the asshole" That's full on "no the children are wrong." There are some massively toxic communities out there. I used to be part of the Goth community of my area. Everyone did massively messed up things to one another and I left because I couldn't condone it. Does that make me an asshole because even though I didn't agree with them and I left they were all assholes so I must be the real one because everyone was an asshole? All because I didn't want to kick people's head in with metal plated New Rock boots? It doesn't make sense. I am not saying I am a saint. Because I'm not. But I wanted to vent about my frustrations with mentioning the OSR at all. I don't go into a frothing rage when someone mentions 5e. Which i did mention. I will respect other's opinions so long as they respect mine. But when they ask why I don't like their stuff I will answer.

Quote from: SonTodoGato on August 25, 2021, 10:55:58 AM
A few pictures say it best

Awesome post.

Quote from: SonTodoGato on August 25, 2021, 10:55:58 AM
It's not the OSR, it's the people who play it. You have two sides; old school fantasy (basic, light rules, DIY-attitude, figuring things out and coming up with stuff on the run, sword & sorcery, "politically incorrect", grognards, hand-drawn art, gritty, free market/conservatism, sandboxing and exploring dungeons)

new school fantasy (complex rules, buying the new module, playing by the book, freakshitting fantasy and anime, diversity, "consent" and session zero, teens and young adults, digital art, violence is not allowed, marxism and "progress", "telling a story"). OSR is a reaction to being dissatisfied with the current state of affairs which naturally draws people with this kind of mindset.

Most new school are idiots who don't know any better; they were surrounded by the new school and didn't have anything to contrast; see the Allegory of the Cave. Others are willful dummies who can't wait to buy the next module so they're told what to think, how to play and to diversify everything in their marxist, anti-white cult.

A few pictures say it best

Is that the mythical wheelchair of diversity, inclusivity, and free ice cream?

Rulings Not Rules can be used to quash player agency.  If the rules say something is supported and a player wants to play that thing, some people dislike that.  Usually it's just a difference of expectations - some people get upset if you play a robot-man in what they think is a gritty-Middle-Earth simulation.  Rather than address differences and work toward a constructive solution, it's easier for some people to claim some vision of perfection from a past age before these options existed and argue that everyone else is doing it wrong. 

Of course, from the other side some people abuse rules that they don't understand to not only ruin the game, but their own fun, too.  Once again, this usually ends up being a failure to match expectations. 

I played D&D in the mid-80s.  Most of the type of people who are OSR players now had a Trapper Keeper with house-rules that they used pretty consistently.  Even when things weren't written down if you played with the same group for a while you'd expect in a similar situation for the same type of request - roll a Dex check, or roll a save versus paralysis - most people prefer to know how things work and even 'rulings not rules' folks tend toward consistency. 

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 25, 2021, 08:33:13 AM
People seem to get really personally offended when I just mention the OSR in passing as something I'm starting to like. I never say my way is the best way, just that it's my way and I prefer it for my games. I'm not trying to change anyone else's minds. But they always go back to several shouted out assertions.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 25, 2021, 02:20:11 PM
They don't understand that DnD is fundamentally a game of chance, and when you take that away it ceases to be a game. And your victories are just hollow. You didn't kill the dragon. I fudged the rolls to give you godmode and noclip and you cheated.

I think there's a fundamental disconnect between saying in the original post that it's just your preference -- and how in your later post you say that other people aren't playing a game, their victories are hollow, and they're cheating.

If you just expressed the first one and people irrationally reacted against it, then I'm with you. But if you told people that they were doing it wrong and cheating, then I can understand them pushing back against what you said.

From my view, it's just a preference. I'm fine with OSR, but I'm also fine with any other RPG style. As long as people are playing from the same understanding with each other, then they're not cheating - they're just playing differently. From my view, preferring one style of RPG or another isn't proof of any real-world virtue or accomplishment. No one is slaying real dragons - we're all just playing make-believe.

Quote from: deadDMwalking on August 25, 2021, 06:43:55 PM
Rulings Not Rules can be used to quash player agency.  If the rules say something is supported and a player wants to play that thing, some people dislike that.  Usually it's just a difference of expectations - some people get upset if you play a robot-man in what they think is a gritty-Middle-Earth simulation.  Rather than address differences and work toward a constructive solution, it's easier for some people to claim some vision of perfection from a past age before these options existed and argue that everyone else is doing it wrong. 

Of course, from the other side some people abuse rules that they don't understand to not only ruin the game, but their own fun, too.  Once again, this usually ends up being a failure to match expectations. 

I played D&D in the mid-80s.  Most of the type of people who are OSR players now had a Trapper Keeper with house-rules that they used pretty consistently.  Even when things weren't written down if you played with the same group for a while you'd expect in a similar situation for the same type of request - roll a Dex check, or roll a save versus paralysis - most people prefer to know how things work and even 'rulings not rules' folks tend toward consistency.

I think ultimately OSR is a mindset. As a DM, when the situation comes, will you resort to the guide/handbook, or will you make a reasonable, sensible ruling on the spot? Can characters be eliminated in the first session or are they given some sort of guarantee of fairness? Are characters expected to end up being legendary or simply very competent at what they do? Are you a sandboxer or do you prefer a more storytelling approach? Will you write complex backstories or will you come up with a basic concept which can develop and gain dimension as you go? Are we playing a tabletop videogame, or can I throw sand at my enemies' eyes?

Having said that, I concede that although I prefer OSR, I get why people would want to avoid the frustration of losing a beloved character, play a story or demand a certain degree of fairness. Some don't know anything other than Critical Role and "le funny anime memes xDD :V uwu"; Can we blame them for playing loli rogues that seduce older men, "pervert XD" bards or warlocks that make derisive comments about religion? Can we blame them for wanting to have their character be the protagonist, with a complex backstory, nuance, dimension, goals, hopes and fears, quirks, beliefs and a catchphrase which will end up being irrelevant once the game starts? If you go on reddit, that's all you get. That is the official advice you're given on how to be a good player. That and, of course, consent, session zero, stating your pronouns and triggers and other such BULLSHIT nobody thought was necessary because we have some degree of social intelligence.

To me, old school is also about sword and sorcery over "high" fantasy. It's about playing in grittier settings in which you're not constantly surrounded by orcs, dwarves and elves who live alongside humans. I think it's a key flavor element that distinguishes players; if they want to play aasimar, ninja turtles, genasi, pandaren or other such races, they're not the same as the party that plays humans (or mostly human, in some cases).

This is what led me to the Pundit. I was checking  out a formidable Spanish RPG called "Aquelarre" (Coven). It takes place in medieval Spain; basically Call of Cthulhu but medieval catholic. It made me realize so-called "medieval fantasy" was actually a kitchen sink of different elements; medieval castles, renaissance towns, 18th century ships and 20th century values. There was nothing medieval about Warcraft or D&D. Eventually I found out about Lion & Dragon and Dark Albion and what caught my attention was that we had an OSR gamer who saw the same things I was seeing and wasn't oblivious or silent about cultural marxism.

Quote from: Aglondir on August 25, 2021, 05:18:58 PM

Quote from: SonTodoGato on August 25, 2021, 10:55:58 AM
A few pictures say it best

Awesome post.

Thanks, here's more!

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 25, 2021, 08:33:13 AM
I'm just getting into OSR related stuff after nearly 15 years playing Pen and Paper RPGs and Wargames. I'm really into a lot of the OSR mentality. Specifically I love that the GM should be the final arbiter of the rules. Great. I've had so much bullshit in the past 5 years from the Critical Role lot whenever they worm their way into my games.

I've recently got into several arguments online and IRL. And it always starts the same way. I've always believed that stories come OUT of whatever game you are playing. And that story is exclusive to and can ONLY happen in the group you are in. I say what I have said above. That I am really starting to like the OSR and I think that's how I want to run my games. Players shouldn't come in with this pre-determined epic adventure they want to play. And I'm not a fan of the Mercer style of fudging dice and pretending to play something resembling DnD in a much more scripted and theatrical way. It doesn't matter where I am, /tg/, Reddit, etc. People seem to get really personally offended when I just mention the OSR in passing as something I'm starting to like. I never say my way is the best way, just that it's my way and I prefer it for my games. I'm not trying to change anyone else's minds. But they always go back to several shouted out assertions. Especially after they died to a goblin at level 1 and have to make a new character.  I didn't make the goblin OP. I just enforced the rules fairly and you had some crappy roles. I am not fudging the dice for you.

"You're just a fucking grognard. DnD is much better now than that old stuff."

"omg you're demanding DnD change to meet your narrow expectations."

"You just want to be an edgy try hard making it hard for no reason. DnD should be fun. Not hard."

I don't think I'm anything special as a GM. I just really want to go back to the idea of DnD as a game of chance. It doesn't always go like you expect. But you have fun and laugh about the dumb rolls afterwards.

"I do not want to create a story, I want to create a stage. The player characters will perform on that stage and interact with the setting. When the players talk to their friends about what their characters did, then there will be a story." - Gaming Mantra of jeff37923

I like the OSR when it harkens back to simpler rules that are elegant and can be extrapolated into the complex, when there is a DIY kind of aesthetic, and when it is open and inviting to all (except assholes).

I don't like the OSR when it is exclusionary (you either play this way with only these rules or you are not a True Gamer), when it is used as an advertising gimmick (our new Podcast is All OSR All The Time, so listen to us and support our Patreon), or is being deliberately uninviting (none of that anime shit in MY OSR, even though Record of Lodoss War was famously the creator's B/X D&D game).

Now note that while SJWs share a lot of behaviors with the OSR which I dislike, I have not seen my disliked OSR try to character assassin someone they disagree with or try to cause them to lose their business income.

I'd like to see more open and inviting OSR than closed OSR, but a lot of the petty arguing that turns newbies off of the OSR seems to happen online and not in reality. When it does happen in reality, the behavior gets lumped in with SJWs attacking everything that they think is not woke enough.

Why does the OSR trigger people? I dunno. I do know that I wish a lot of them would calm the fuck down because it turns potential players off.

Games are supposed to be fun.

I don't understand the complaints about the second picture in both of the posts. Sure it's not my style but why do you think 'fantasy' ends with humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings? It could be said that people who don't like the new style aren't creative or imaginative enough to imagine owlpeople or wheelchairs. What's the point of limiting the imagination as long as it still results in an enjoyable game for some groups?

But I think you answered your own question in the original post when you mentioned death from an unlucky roll. People have to find the time and friends and group and get to where they are playing and buy snacks and drinks, pay a babysitter, buy the books and dice, etc and don't want to go through all that just to have their fun quashed by a bad roll of the dice. Who cares? They have their priorities and style and you have yours; why waste time worrying about it?

Quote from: jhkim on August 25, 2021, 06:44:51 PM

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 25, 2021, 08:33:13 AM
People seem to get really personally offended when I just mention the OSR in passing as something I'm starting to like. I never say my way is the best way, just that it's my way and I prefer it for my games. I'm not trying to change anyone else's minds. But they always go back to several shouted out assertions.

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 25, 2021, 02:20:11 PM
They don't understand that DnD is fundamentally a game of chance, and when you take that away it ceases to be a game. And your victories are just hollow. You didn't kill the dragon. I fudged the rolls to give you godmode and noclip and you cheated.

I think there's a fundamental disconnect between saying in the original post that it's just your preference -- and how in your later post you say that other people aren't playing a game, their victories are hollow, and they're cheating.

If you just expressed the first one and people irrationally reacted against it, then I'm with you. But if you told people that they were doing it wrong and cheating, then I can understand them pushing back against what you said.

From my view, it's just a preference. I'm fine with OSR, but I'm also fine with any other RPG style. As long as people are playing from the same understanding with each other, then they're not cheating - they're just playing differently. From my view, preferring one style of RPG or another isn't proof of any real-world virtue or accomplishment. No one is slaying real dragons - we're all just playing make-believe.

I am liberal when it comes to interpreting DnD rules. I'm not full on worshiping the bible of Gygax like some OSR people are but I gave my opinion of why I find the storygaming and critical role to be the wrong way to play. It's as close as I will ever get to saying such a thing. But only because it is the wrong way. In the same way bringing hockey sticks to a football game is wrong. And then arguing that you can play football anyway you want because some guy on you tube said so.  Feel free to disagree. But if you aren't engaging with the game beyond seeing it as a storytelling exercise for your own vanity I have every right to tell anyone doing that in my games that they are in fact doing it wrong. But that's in my games. I wouldn't say it in their games. But I wouldn't even join their games because we'd both be miserable with each other.  I ask very little of my players. I don't want them to feel shitty as to their interpretation of the rules over mine. But b/x says the Referee is the final arbiter of the rules. Which 5E doesn't say.  I ask nicely that my players not argue with this and I explain as clearly as I can my interpretations and house rules so everyone is on the same page.  If they are engaging in the game. That's all I ask for and want in my games. Participate and engage with the GAME and not the weird self insert fan fiction you want the game to be. The OSR in all it's permutations encourages that. I like it. Others really don't and as it's hard to find others who like OSR as I do that is really starting to bother me.

Quote from: Khazav on August 25, 2021, 08:13:37 PM
I don't understand the complaints about the second picture in both of the posts. Sure it's not my style but why do you think 'fantasy' ends with humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings? It could be said that people who don't like the new style aren't creative or imaginative enough to imagine owlpeople or wheelchairs. What's the point of limiting the imagination as long as it still results in an enjoyable game for some groups?

But I think you answered your own question in the original post when you mentioned death from an unlucky roll. People have to find the time and friends and group and get to where they are playing and buy snacks and drinks, pay a babysitter, buy the books and dice, etc and don't want to go through all that just to have their fun quashed by a bad roll of the dice. Who cares? They have their priorities and style and you have yours; why waste time worrying about it?

The difference in the art imo is quality. The second piece of art looks like absolute shit. An adventurer in a wheelchair is dumb. It doesn't add anything to the game. It's not like a cool wheelchair with cool weapons. It's pointless woke virtue signaling.

Quote from: SonTodoGato on August 25, 2021, 07:58:40 PM

Does she have a blase sheep as a hammer?

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 25, 2021, 04:36:26 PM
...
I have never lived anywhere with any more than 1 LGS. Usually 0 tbh. Everyone goes to the ONE place. And it becomes impossible to find games that aren't related to that one place. Maybe that's a big city american thing where you have multiple shops but we're lucky to have one per county in my country.  Sometimes it's just a choice of putting up with the bullshit or no games.
...

Wow, I don't know where you live – but I found my current group without ever going near a game store. There are no internet sites that serve as an RPG bulletin board for the area?

Of course even in the US it seems that some regions are just RPG terra incognita...

Quote from: Khazav on August 25, 2021, 08:13:37 PM
I don't understand the complaints about the second picture in both of the posts. Sure it's not my style but why do you think 'fantasy' ends with humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings? It could be said that people who don't like the new style aren't creative or imaginative enough to imagine owl-people or wheelchairs. What's the point of limiting the imagination as long as it still results in an enjoyable game for some groups?

It's the other way around actually.

The people that actually like the new style are the ones that aren't creative or imaginative enough to engage in compelling role play without the crutch of the furry mask to give themselves some sort of in-game identity outside of their own persona.

Physical appearance/attributes = who they are.

They are incapable of taking a standard human fighter and role paying that character as someone that is not them.

They hide behind the furry mask so that they can say: "Look at me I'm an oh-so-random Tiefling druid warlock!" So that they can pretend that they are not playing a mary-sue extension of themselves.

The "new style" mentality of the character being as extension of the player's ego is one of the reason's things like Charm, Sleep, and character death have become "uncool" and "Not fun."

They take in-game harm on their characters = emotional harm to themselves. They seem to lack the emotional maturity and tools to separate pretend consequences from real emotional ones.

So they rally and push to have those aspects of the game nerfed. Yet along with those "uncool" nerfed aspects of play we are also seeing the increased rise of RPG "Safety tools". I posit that these two aspects of "new school" RPG gaming are not unrelated...

Quote from: King Tyranno on August 25, 2021, 08:22:18 PM
...But if you aren't engaging with the game beyond seeing it as a storytelling exercise for your own vanity I have every right to tell anyone doing that in my games that they are in fact doing it wrong. ...Participate and engage with the GAME and not the weird self insert fan fiction you want the game to be. ...

It is possible to play RPG's wrong. 100%.

I'm not saying that they are not having fun playing RPG's wrong – they certainly seem to be.

But that does not change the fact that they are doing it wrong.

Quote from: Pat on August 25, 2021, 08:29:21 PM
Does she have a blase sheep as a hammer?

It has gotten to the point that it is nigh impossible to tell the difference between what they show in all seriousness, and the parodies of them.

Combat wheelchair 40K
A Preacher of the Imperial Creed.
(Dr TotenKranz by Reaper Miniatures...supervillain or ultragross take on Baron Harkonnen?)