Daztur> "Incoherent" games are by far more popular than "pure" ones of any of the types. It's the most obvious thing that Edward overlooked, and it's something that the OSR doesn't seem to get much either.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;372943Daztur> "Incoherent" games are by far more popular than "pure" ones of any of the types. It's the most obvious thing that Edward overlooked, and it's something that the OSR doesn't seem to get much either.

"OSR"? Who are you talking about?

There are nearly as many positions on this amongst old-schoolers and bloggers than there are people interested in these games in the first place. I posit that "OSR" in this case makes some extreme opinion look like it's a consensus amongst a group, or groups, of individuals interested in vintage games that is/are not cohesive and do/es not have any consensus on this issue in the first place.

That's the biggest fallacy about what people refer to as "OSR".

Quote from: Benoist;372951"OSR"? Who are you talking about?

There are nearly as many positions on this amongst old-schoolers and bloggers than there are people interested in these games in the first place. I posit that "OSR" in this case makes some extreme opinion look like it's a consensus amongst a group, or groups, of individuals interested in vintage games that is/are not cohesive and do/es not have any consensus on this issue in the first place.

That's the biggest fallacy about what people refer to as "OSR".

The author of the OSP then.

Quote from: Benoist;372951That's the biggest fallacy about what people refer to as "OSR".

There's quite a similar comment for anyone who uses the term "4venger" or "c4bal" or any of that shit.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;372953The author of the Old School Primer then.

Matt Finch? How so?

Quote from: Fifth Element;372954There's quite a similar comment for anyone who uses the term "4venger" or "c4bal" or any of that shit.

So you are telling me that the "OSR" acronym is used solely as a mean of derision by people not enjoying vintage games to describe those who do? Sounds like there's some truth to it, to be honest.

Quote from: Benoist;372951"OSR"? Who are you talking about?

There are nearly as many positions on this amongst old-schoolers and bloggers than there are people interested in these games in the first place. I posit that "OSR" in this case makes some extreme opinion look like it's a consensus amongst a group, or groups, of individuals interested in vintage games that is/are not cohesive and do/es not have any consensus on this issue in the first place.

That's the biggest fallacy about what people refer to as "OSR".

Replace "OSR" with "Forge" and it still works.

Quote from: Benoist;372956So you are telling me that the "OSR" acronym is used solely as a mean of derision by people not enjoying vintage games to describe those who do? Sounds like there's some truth to it, to be honest.

No, but I do mean that terms like "4venger" are applied to anyone who plays 4E, regardless of whether they are worthy of derision or not.

Quote from: Fifth Element;372961No, but I do mean that terms like "4venger" are applied to anyone who plays 4E, regardless of whether they are worthy of derision or not.

I'm sure it is applied in this way by some people, yes. I personally have used it to refer to a specific subset of hardcore fans of the game who just cannot help but defend The Game That Can Do No Wrong (TM), but I'm sure it's been used in the way you describe. *nod*

Quote from: Benoist;372962I'm sure it is applied in this way by some people, yes. I personally have used it to refer to a specific subset of hardcore fans of the game who just cannot help but defend The Game That Can Do No Wrong (TM), but I'm sure it's been used in the way you describe. *nod*

You may think that's how you use it, but I can personally guarantee you that it is not.

Quote from: Fifth Element;372963You may think that's how you use it, but I can personally guarantee you that it is not.

I don't give a shit what you think, though if you care about what -I- think (I'm not holding my breath, don't worry) on the matter, I think you've just found an occasion to troll a little bit, and are just all too happy to oblige.

Quote from: Benoist;372955Matt Finch? How so?

The OSP disparages "modern" games and certain styles of play it associates with those games. He even, as you pointed out and quoted over on therpghaven.com, makes up little stereotypical examples to try to isolate the two styles.

Similarly with Sett, Elliott, you, and a number of other vocal posters connected to the OSR on here who go off about "story gaming". "Story gaming" and "Immersion" (or whatever it is this week) are artificial categories of play that don't exist except on message boards. It's like GNS all over again.

For the record: I don't use OSR as a term of derision, but I'm not part of the OSR gang, either. I use it to refer to pretty much the vocal internet posters who talk about about playing older editions of D&D, and of them, mainly the proselytic arm rather than the productive one.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;372967The OSP disparages "modern" games and certain styles of play it associates with those games. He even, as you pointed out and quoted over on therpghaven.com, makes up little stereotypical examples to try to isolate the two styles.

What it does is point out the difference between using dice and using descriptions and actions of the part of players to resolve actions in the game. Yes the example is stereotypical, on purpose, and the text does include a disclaimer pointing it out:

Quote from: Matt Finch, Old School PrimerNote: The modern-style GM in these examples is a pretty boring guy when it comes to adding flavor into his game. This isn’t done to make modern-style gaming look bad: we assume most people reading this booklet regularly play modern-style games and know that they aren’t this boring. It’s done to highlight when and how rules are used in modern gaming, as opposed to when and how they aren’t used in oldstyle gaming. So the modern-style GM talks his way through all the rules he’s using, which isn’t how a good modern-style GM usually runs his game.

There is a difference in play style, and the OSP addresses this difference. I don't see it as an attempt to disparage anything. I see how the example can be misconstrued as such, but since it very cleary spells out that it is not such attempt in its disclaimer, I do not. Do with it as you will.

Matt Finch visits these parts from time to time. Maybe he'll clarify.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;372967Similarly with Sett, Elliott, you, and a number of other vocal posters connected to the OSR on here who go off about "story gaming". "Story gaming" and "Immersion" (or whatever it is this week) are artificial categories of play that don't exist except on message boards. It's like GNS all over again.

Actually, no, these aren't "artificial" categories. One (story gaming) understands games  as the reenactment of story lines, plots, subplots, with countless GMs out there who try to emulate its tenets and are suddenly surprised that their game went to shit, their players quit because the game was too linear, or they did not talk to the right NPC, went off the map/track/storyline, or felt like none of their choices mattered in the grand scheme of things, whereas the other (immersive gaming) depicts events in the game world as they occur, as examplified in a sandbox style of play, or dungeon/wilderness explorations, or open-ended campaign for instances, where story is the consequence of play after it actually occurred.

I've seen plenty of both types of games, and really, you can talk about forgite bullshit, try to keep the argument squarely focused on terminological hair-splitting (very similar to forgite speech on your part, by the way) and or pure rhetorical wankery, as you've done time and time again on this board, but just because you say something doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't. Sorry to say.

Nice try, though.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;372967The OSP disparages "modern" games and certain styles of play it associates with those games. He even, as you pointed out and quoted over on therpghaven.com, makes up little stereotypical examples to try to isolate the two styles.

Players and fan publishers of old school games do not like the direction many modern games have gone in and speak their mind about what they see is wrong with modern games they don't like and right with older games they do like. This is no different than people who like 4e saying what they like about it and what they don't like about earlier editions.

Matt Finch's Old School Primer is just ONE way to play old school. It is arguably very close to the the way Gary and Dave thought, but it isn't the only way. Yes, Matt's Old School Primer compares the worse way to handle "new school" to his version of "old school" but Matt admits that in the the article and says it is being done to make the differences very clear.  Was that the best way to do it? I don't know, but the article certainly owns up to what it is doing. It's not pretending that all "new school" GMs are as poor as the examples.