There's something aesthetic about the OSR, and something substantial about it.  Aesthetically it likes the Weird Tales vibe, where anything from speculative fiction can go in ---- compared to post-2e D&D it's more comfortable with horror elements (Lovecraftian for mainstream OSR, splatter for the Rafael Chandler/LOTFP subgroup), sci-fi or sword-and-planet elements, etc. ---- and it has noticeably different art styles with lower production values.  I once semi-jokingly defined the OSR as "the set of people who like Erol Otus artwork", on the grounds that this is pretty much the only thing that we all agree on.

Which takes me onto the substance.  The OSR isn't a movement towards anything, actually ---- it's certainly not a movement back towards the game Gary Gygax wrote.  Because we don't need to move back towards it; the majority of us never stopped playing, or not for very long, so for most there's no actual direction of travel there.  The OSR a reaction against something ---- actually a reaction against centralised control of the right to print/publish material you could use with your old school D&D game.  There may never have been any such centralised control in reality, but people thought there was and the perception was stifling.  Matt Finch's genius was to show one route to let anyone write old school material.  That genie can't be put back in the bottle now.  For good or for ill, anyone can publish whatever they like and a lot of people are.  Some do it better than others...

I'm definitely glad people are making new material for old games (or clones of or variations of old games), especially adventures, because some of it's really good and I don't always have time to make it all up on my own (some of you do - great!). That's the extent of my interest in the OSR.

So, the OSR is porn?

Almost everybody's enjoying it, but nobody wants to be associated with it!

OSR? Bah humbug! Grumble, grumble, grumble. Hey, is that a new module by that hot author? Gonna take it home to "read" it in the bathroom!

Quote from: estar;861803The first point in my opinion is valid, as much of a seminal work OD&D was we learned how to present RPGs better. However the second point is wrong. Even presented with a clearly written version like Delving Deeper, or S&W White Box, those who are critics still persist in claiming OD&D is obsolete. Claiming that it is missing important elements of modern RPGs. Yet many of these critics also fawn over games with lite mechanics like Fate that have as much or fewer mechanics than OD&D.

Counterpoint: Delving Deeper or S&W or any other retroclone of OD&D inevitably end up doing a certain amount of interpretation and filling in of the gaps in the original presentation. (Indeed, B/X is largely Moldvay and Cook's exegesis of OD&D plus a few supplements, and AD&D 1E is Gygax's exegesis of OD&D plus substantially more supplements.) They are written with the benefit of hindsight, and consequently it would be entirely feasible for someone to say that OD&D is obsolete or not functional as written but S&W White Box is fine. In fact, they could argue that OD&D is rendered obsolete by the existence of S&W White Box, because the better explanation provided there means that only a masochist need refer to the original booklets.

I would not agree with them, mind, because I actually take the opposite position: I say that performing the work of exegesis is actually integral to the experience of OD&D itself, and perhaps one of the more interesting reasons to go back and replay it rather than playing one of the subsequent interpretations of it. Taking something that pretty much demands a little house-ruling and effort to fill in the gaps and make it purr and making your own decisions about how to complete it is interesting in its own right. But this would be true of such a toolkit whether it was written in 1974 or 2015. (Indeed, FUDGE is another example of an incomplete game - indeed, it's deliberately even more incomplete and requires more work to take the basic principles of FUDGE and turn it around into a fully-featured game for your campaign.)

Quote from: Warthur;861838Counterpoint: Delving Deeper or S&W or any other retroclone of OD&D inevitably end up doing a certain amount of interpretation and filling in of the gaps in the original presentation.

This is a known issue and explained in White Box and Delving Deeper that they are both interpretation of OD&D by the author. It the nature of the OD&D rules. But thanks to the internet, talking to the original gamers, and the work done by guys like Jon Peterson we have an idea of what Gygax and Arneson were going for. So while there still a process of interpretation in making a OD&D retro-clone we have an idea of where in the field the ball is suppose to land.

My view is that never going to be a definitive OD&D interpretation because first and foremost it was tool to help a referee run a tabletop RPG campaign. The point of the game was to run the campaign not the rules themselves. Everybody is going to run their campaigns differently hence OD&D is never going to be the same between two different campaigns.

I realized this when I noticed that in both in the case of Blackmoor and Greyhawk the campaign was first then the rules came afterwards. Note I am not saying there were no rules at the start of the campaign only that the rules were treated as tools and as a consequence were changed on an ongoing basis to better suit the game that Gygax and Arneson were running.  

Quote from: Warthur;861838They are written with the benefit of hindsight, and consequently it would be entirely feasible for someone to say that OD&D is obsolete or not functional as written but S&W White Box is fine. In fact, they could argue that OD&D is rendered obsolete by the existence of S&W White Box, because the better explanation provided there means that only a masochist need refer to the original booklets.

I would add that the major flaw of OD&D is that Gygax didn't explain enough about how he ran campaigns. Not so much the rules but why rules were created and changed in the first place. But then it was a first of its kind product so it understandable.

Quote from: Warthur;861838I would not agree with them, mind, because I actually take the opposite position: I say that performing the work of exegesis is actually integral to the experience of OD&D itself, and perhaps one of the more interesting reasons to go back and replay it rather than playing one of the subsequent interpretations of it.

Taking something that pretty much demands a little house-ruling and effort to fill in the gaps and make it purr and making your own decisions about how to complete it is interesting in its own right.

Well the thing is that I don't OD&D in its original form explained that aspect well enough. The experience of the public then and even now is that a game comes with rules that are hard and fast. But because of the scope of RPG campaigns as pen & paper virtual realities that neither feasible or desirable.

Compounding this issue is that people have different tolerances as to what they want to be creative about. Able, Baker, and Charlie may all like to play and referee OD&D but Able may wish for a version with many of the vague areas with firm interpretations.

What this means from my viewpoint that diversity of worked examples/interpretations is good particularly for a RPG like OD&D that function more as toolkit. The fact that much of OD&D is under the OGL ensures that diversity. To me this ensures that somewhere, sometime, there is a version of OD&D  that a interested gamer will find suited for him.

Quote from: Warthur;861838I say that performing the work of exegesis is actually integral to the experience of OD&D itself, and perhaps one of the more interesting reasons to go back and replay it rather than playing one of the subsequent interpretations of it.

I think I know what you mean (and assuming we're on the same page, I agree with your assessment), but please explain your thoughts and your take on "performing the work of exegesis."

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;861742The hostility of Grognardia, and apparently much of the OSR in general, to Dragonlance "

Quote from: grognardiaHow's that for hyperbole? And it is hyperbole. Dragonlance didn't ruin everything, but it did exert a baleful influence over the development not just of D&D but also roleplaying in general. In part, that's because it was such a brilliant idea and succeeded so well at its intended goals as an early foray into the creation of a "multimedia" campaign for an RPG. They didn't call it such back in the day, as the term hadn't been invented so far as I know, but that's what it was.

Yeah, thats some overwhelming hostility...

I think one of the big sources of enthusiasm for the OSR that often gets overlooked is: "wait, wait, so THAT'S how some people played before I started playing? That sounds really fun. More fun than all of the stupid middle-school stuff I did when I was a dumb middle schooler reading articles in the Dragon magazine about how random encounters were a waste of time because they distracted players from the plot."

A lot of it isn't people being nostalgic it's about people who have been using a camera as a hammer for years before giving up in disgust to buy a proper sledgehammer finally figuring out how to take photos with the damn thing.

I kind of like a lot of the material written for older editions of D&D, but I'm ambivalent or hostile toward many of the people who, in the past couple of years, have decided they are card-carrying OSR members, or even worse 'OSR insiders'. The OSR people I really like are typically too busy writing and creating to spend hours a day on a forum arguing, calling people swine, telling random strangers to fellate them or making lists of people they don't like. Life's too short to associate with those assholes.

Count me as not caring about the OSR "movement". My first foray into D&D was AD&D 2e in '97 and my 1st level Cavalier died about 5 min after I spent the previous 45 min going through the character creation process. After learning the rules and all the nuisances of the system and the DM's particulars I found myself not enjoying it at all. It was nothing like the Baldurs Gate experience they assured me it would be.

So after I played through 3.x and 4e and 5e plus a small sampling of other systems I downloaded Swords and Wizards (I believe it was called) and a few other OSR-style games and I still didn't like it. I realized then that it was less about the specific system and more about how one approaches the game from a fundamental perspective. This also helped me realize that one can generally achieve the same thing and not be system a specific.

But hey, play what makes you happy.

Quote from: Kellri;861887I kind of like a lot of the material written for older editions of D&D, but I'm ambivalent or hostile toward many of the people who, in the past couple of years, have decided they are card-carrying OSR members, or even worse 'OSR insiders'. The OSR people I really like are typically too busy writing and creating to spend hours a day on a forum arguing, calling people swine, telling random strangers to fellate them or making lists of people they don't like. Life's too short to associate with those assholes.

What's up with the whole "Swine" thing anyway? I've been posting here for over a year and this term comes up every now and then but often used in a way that assumes the reader knows who "they" are. For a while I assumed it only related to the whole GamerGate stuff but apparently not.

Quote from: Spinachcat;861836So, the OSR is porn?

Almost everybody's enjoying it, but nobody wants to be associated with it!

OSR? Bah humbug! Grumble, grumble, grumble. Hey, is that a new module by that hot author? Gonna take it home to "read" it in the bathroom!

Ha! To be honest, I have no issues saying I use "OSR" material in my gaming group. I just don't have much interest in talking OSR "politics" with people online. I don't think there's any hypocrisy there.

Quote from: Batman;861890What's up with the whole "Swine" thing anyway? I've been posting here for over a year and this term comes up every now and then but often used in a way that assumes the reader knows who "they" are. For a while I assumed it only related to the whole GamerGate stuff but apparently not.

The term "Swine" is the Pundit's generic term of derision for those who have tastes in RPGs (or what RPGPundit would call Story Games, as opposed to "real RPGs") orthogonal to his. It's rather liberally applied, but in it's tightest sense would seem to refer to the authors and devotees of indie RPGs like Maid, Poison'd, Apocalypse World, and other RPGs heavy on narrative control.

Quote from: Bobloblah;861909The term "Swine" is the Pundit's generic term of derision for those who have tastes in RPGs (or what RPGPundit would call Story Games, as opposed to "real RPGs") orthogonal to his...

More accurately it's a term for game designers and supporters of the now defunct Forge site and sensibilities - Story Now or Story Games. A group of people who were not content inventing a new kind of gaming but instead insisted everyone was "doing it wrong" was "brain damaged" and that the industry and hobby needed to change to "get to the real roleplaying which is focused on creating stories".

It was a shitty disingenuous approach. Some (like myself) were sucked in, tricked and then spent a couple years repairing the damage to our gaming. Tis why I'm here. You may not appreciate the Pundit's style or approach but I'm a living example of the truth he is speaking about these very misguided people.

Now, things have calmed down. People like story games for what they are. A different but related activity that can be fun when you let go of any "this is the only way to roleplay" nonsense. Some of the Forge people have even gone on to create more traditional games like Apocalypse World, where the player procedures are more codified, but essentially function like a "classic" RPG.

Here is the thing. These are particular styles of games (Story Games) that have a different focus. I would argue Apocalypse World is a good ol fashioned RPG with more codified procedures. You're essentially doing the exact same things, only with more guidance. it's like an instruction on how to play a role within a game.

Story Games are not about WHO made them but WHAT they are focused on.

The SWINE are a group of arrogant fucktards who used Story Games as a tool to demonize, discredit and replace a hobby/industry doing just fine without their high-horse academic proselytizing.

It IS a thing. I lived it.

It IS NOT however an excuse for us to turn the tables. Story Gamers are a related hobby to roleplayers. Many people enjoy both activities. I am not about shit on, push out or admonish someone for playing Dogs in the Vineyard. There is enough room in our nerd collective for new ideas, new offshoots and new games. Just be upfront about what were doing so I can decide what's best for me.

Sincerely, with love for all kinds of gamers,

Quote from: trechriron;861927More accurately it's a term for game designers and supporters of the now defunct Forge site and sensibilities - Story Now or Story Games. A group of people who were not content inventing a new kind of gaming but instead insisted everyone was "doing it wrong" was "brain damaged" and that the industry and hobby needed to change to "get to the real roleplaying which is focused on creating stories".

It was a shitty disingenuous approach. Some (like myself) were sucked in, tricked and then spent a couple years repairing the damage to our gaming. Tis why I'm here. You may not appreciate the Pundit's style or approach but I'm a living example of the truth he is speaking about these very misguided people.

Now, things have calmed down. People like story games for what they are. A different but related activity that can be fun when you let go of any "this is the only way to roleplay" nonsense. Some of the Forge people have even gone on to create more traditional games like Apocalypse World, where the player procedures are more codified, but essentially function like a "classic" RPG.

Here is the thing. These are particular styles of games (Story Games) that have a different focus. I would argue Apocalypse World is a good ol fashioned RPG with more codified procedures. You're essentially doing the exact same things, only with more guidance. it's like an instruction on how to play a role within a game.

Story Games are not about WHO made them but WHAT they are focused on.

The SWINE are a group of arrogant fucktards who used Story Games as a tool to demonize, discredit and replace a hobby/industry doing just fine without their high-horse academic proselytizing.

It IS a thing. I lived it.

It IS NOT however an excuse for us to turn the tables. Story Gamers are a related hobby to roleplayers. Many people enjoy both activities. I am not about shit on, push out or admonish someone for playing Dogs in the Vineyard. There is enough room in our nerd collective for new ideas, new offshoots and new games. Just be upfront about what were doing so I can decide what's best for me.

Sincerely, with love for all kinds of gamers,

From what I've seen, you're spot on about where the term originated. However, I don't think I've seen the RPGPundit restrict his usage to anything so specific in a long time. And why would he? He no doubt thinks he has 'won' whatever battle raged between the fringes of two branches of a niche hobby (cue Pundit's predictable and entertaining self-aggrandizement), and has migrated the term's meaning so he can still use it. Whatever. I'm sorry you had a bad ride with the Forge crowd, but I have difficulty caring much about how other people like to play pretend. Were it not for the Pundit, I might never have known (slight exaggeration) they (i.e., the Forge) existed. Considering I've never met a single person offline who's ever heard of them, or who has even played any of their games (including the more 'popular' ones), I consider any claims of their influence to be, shall we say, hyperbolic. I think it's easy to lose sight of the insignificance of the lunatic fringe when their voice is magnified online.

I'll toast your last point about Story Games, though. I have no use for narrative elements in my RPGs, but like I said, I don't really care how other people like to play pretend. If they're having fun, more power to 'em.