Quote from: Phantom Black;369023True, change does not necessarily mean progress, but why not combine good new ideas with good old ideas?

The "issue" i see with the OSR:
It seems to me, that the good ideas from the OSR stay with the OSR and that they don't seem to be open to new ideas from "outside" which might be combined and integrated with the OSR games themself to get a game even more people would like to play.

The problem here is always that "good" is idiosyncratic. One person's "good" is another person's "crap". To some people there is zero good in recent RPGs, and thus adding zero is the same as not adding zero, so OSR Game Y *does* include the best of old and new ideas. No two people have the same value sets. Where they are substantially the same we can ignore the small differences, but that is not always the case. Sometimes there just isn't enough common ground to usefully communicate. Sometimes person A has little in common with person B, but person C has similar enough value sets to both A and B that communication is possible when C is present. It's just very difficult to be objective about it.

-clash

Quote from: Tavis;369020This, although I don't know about "refreshes". Even though I grew up with AD&D I never had a good understanding of what it was designed to do well and how I could get the most out of it. Thanks to the discussion and resources of the OSR, I currently enjoy playing old-school D&D much more than I did back in the day. (Experience with many other game systems, and twenty years' worth of maturity and personal growth, must also get some of the credit.)

I think the OSR is useful as a movement for the same reason that genre is useful for a reader: if you like one book with a rocketship on the cover, having a label can be a good guide to where to go if you want to delve deeper into more stuff like that.

IMO the body of work associated with the OSR is worth checking out (and experiencing for yourself through actual play with a group open to the experience) even if you don't plan to make a habit of playing older games. I feel like the recent games of 4E and Rogue Trader I've run have been much more successful because of my immersion in the roots of gaming, and discovering that I really, really love the original D&D I never played as a kid doesn't stop me from being interested in new stuff as well.

eXACTLY.

I don't play D&D anymore.  
I still love the feel and a lot the games and settings they inspire...and there is much to learn and take away from it.

I look it like a style or movement of artwork that I may not be painting/writing with now, but that I can still appreciate and that I can still take something from.

Quote from: Phantom Black;368999Why should i play a dungeoncrawl system modeled after oD&D/AD&D/what have you, if i already hated brainless and boring dungeoncrawling with a crude arcane system that people seemed to play only because of nostalgic reasons, having to use loads of houserules to get something playable?

I hate RPGs with long, tactical combats and/or books and books of rules. Therefore, I don't play WOTC editions of D&D very often. If you don't like TSR versions of D&D, there's no reason you you to play them.

That said, there seem to be lots of people who aren't me who like WOTC editions of D&D and play them. There are also lots of people who aren't you who like TSR versions of D&D and like to play them. Some companies and fans publish stuff for WOTC editions and those who like those editions get some or all of those products. Other companies and fans publish stuff for TSR editions of D&D and people interested get some or all of those products. No one is being forced to play, buy, or download stuff they aren't interested in.

QuoteTo me, the OSR is the Forge's even more evil twin, because instead of trying to achieve a system that's a modern era of roleplay it regresses RPG as a hobby itself.

Which edition of D&D is "best" is a purely subjective thing (that is, its an opinion). The current edition isn't automatically the "best" for everyone. What individual game systems are "best" is generally subjective as well. More recently published does not mean "automatically better" any more than older edition means "automatically better."
 

QuoteI just don't get it why one shouldn't pick the best new ideas and merge them with good ideas from the past to create a nice system that's "stable" and "traditional" yet not as dusty and antiquated like S&W or Lab Lord or all the many clones out there.

That's what a lot of people are doing. Games like Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, etc. are just tools to do three things with:

* Provide OGL versions of older, out-of-print editions of D&D so that publishers can publish adventures and supplements for older editions without having to worry about trademarks and the like. Those people still playing older editions of D&D appreciate this as they can now buy new modules designed with their favorite edition in mind.

* Provide free-to-download copies of rules compatible with various older editions of D&D so that people wanting top play it can easily and cheaply get copies. I'm running an OD&D game, for example, but I'm the only player in the group who owns a copy of the OD&D rules. All the players are using Swords & Wizardry et al.

* Provide OGL versions of the old TSR editions which can be customized by those wishing to release their own "old school" D&D-like game without having to write it all from scratch.  A lot of people are doing just this and some of them are adding feature from more recent games that they like and feel fit their view of what "old school" is.

Then there are games like my Microlite74 which try to do other things. In M74's case, that is to port the "old school" feel and style of play to more modern (but still rules light) system rules: Microlite20 -- a very lite version of 3.5.

None of this will interest those who do not like the "old school" styles of play (yes, styles -- Matt Finch's excellent article only presents one "old school" style) just as 4e is of no interest to those who do not like its styles of play. There's nothing wrong with this as there is no one true way.

Quote from: flyingmice;369022I did the OSR thing back when it was the New Thing, so maybe my perspective is a tad different...

Nah, it sounds like it just takes me longer to stop being really into the New Thing! I miss living in Chicago where you could get a 2 liter bottle of New Coke for 99 cents in the corner bodegas.

Quote from: Phantom Black;369023True, change does not necessarily mean progress, but why not combine good new ideas with good old ideas?

It is already happening. Take a look at Mongoose Traveller, which is a cleaned up and streamlined version of Classic Traveller that is backwards compatible.

I'm far from an OSR purist, but I like old school games for 3 main reasons.
 
1)They are a subcategory of light games, which tend to play lately.  For the most part.  My preferred version is Basic Fantasy - it's derived from Basic so it's simple (but not too simple, like S&W can be) but it's the most open to new ideas instead of sticking to a strict translation.  
 
2) For most players over 30, it's like riding a bike.  There's not much to learn or remember.  For people with jobs, kids, and lots going on, it's nice to be able to jump in a game without learning hundreds of pages of rules.
 
3) The rules are free.  Unless I'm really sure that everyone is into a system for a long campaign, I don't want to make players buy books - no dropping $100+ on a line to discover that we're changing systems in a week.  I'd rather go with a free system or some test drive rules that they can read over in an hour.  Some people still have their old books handy, some don't or have different versions - going with a free pdf gets everyone on the same rules footing.
 
We'll do short dungeon crawls but it's only a small part of the total gaming.  I'm also not dogmatic about rules; I like D20, Savage Worlds, CoC, and various light games from places like 1km1kt.

Great posts by Tavis and RandallS.

Quite simply, people are members of the OSR because they enjoy games that no longer are supported by any major RPG companies.  Thanks to the OGL, these games -- and, specifically, OOP versions of D&D -- can be supported actively by fans and gamers.

Not everyone has to like OSR games.  Nobody is forcing the games on them.  For those who do like OSR games, it is great that there now exists a vibrant, online community of like-minded gamers!

There are members?

Quote from: One Horse Town;369044There are members?

Didn't you get the secret handshake pamphlet?

Quote from: One Horse Town;369044There are members?

I have a member, don't you?

-clash

Sadly, my member becomes more old-school with every passing day.

Quote from: One Horse Town;369044There are members?

I believe they are more properly classified as "tools", but there are some. Or so I have heard.

Quote from: Phantom Black;368999(...) why should one play a retro-clone that is... outdated, antiquated and somewhat overcome from a design-related point of view?

Because some of the ealiest games did right the first time around? It comes down to whether you buy into the idea of "progress" in RPG design. I don't. For me, games are specific to certain game play experiences. These game play experiences, if appreciated, do not somehow become "obsolete" because some other, more recent, game did it some other way.

Quote from: Phantom Black;368999To be even more provocative:
Why should i play a dungeoncrawl system modeled after oD&D/AD&D/what have you, if i already hated brainless and boring dungeoncrawling with a crude arcane system that people seemed to play only because of nostalgic reasons, having to use loads of houserules to get something playable?

Dungeoncrawling does not have to be brainless and boring. Indeed, at its best, it's actually completely the reverse: entertaining, and intellectually stimulating. As for the rules, sometimes, simpler is better. Sometimes, arcane means there is a pleasure in discovering and deciphering. Also, houserules may mean "making the game your own". Nothing, in my mind, is better than this, because in the end, you and your players are the only ones who truly know what's going on at the actual game table.

Quote from: Phantom Black;368999To me, the OSR is the Forge's even more evil twin, because instead of trying to achieve a system that's a modern era of roleplay it regresses RPG as a hobby itself.
 
I just don't get it why one shouldn't pick the best new ideas and merge them with good ideas from the past to create a nice system that's "stable" and "traditional" yet not as dusty and antiquated like S&W or Lab Lord or all the many clones out there.

Again. That all depends whether you buy into the idea of "progress" in RPG design or not. There is some degree of evolution, for sure, and nobody's saying that there aren't new and interesting ideas. Doesn't mean however that the "new" automatically makes the "old" obsolete, or useless, or boring, etc.

Quote from: One Horse Town;369044There are members?

Hmm ... 'participants' would have been more apt.

Benoist, heretic aka Phantom Black is utterly w/o clue re: RPGs, he hasn´t played too much of what you would recognize as such. Just so that you know.