The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
this this this!
The state of Post-OSR content
- Thread starter Yora
- Start date
this this this!
PrinceofNothing
High Executarch
Yeah I agree. I thought it was something like:
1. Imitation (OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Faster Monkey Games, Small Niche Games, Many Gates of the Gann, Melan etc.)
2. Minor innovation (Lotfp, Early Megadungeons (Barrowmaze, Anomalous Subsurface Environment), Carcosa (actually super radical but still thematic fealty), DCC, ACKS)
3. Radical innovation (Mörk Börg, Tröika, Neo-classical Geek Revival, Deep Carbon Observatory, standard hipster pretentious filth etc. etc.)
It was my impression the motivation behind Retroclones was originally to use something that was out of print, which could be done via the OGL (hell yeah!). Eventually it picked up and people started making their own retroclones and went from imitating and, rediscovering, I guess, to making their own mods. Literal imitation goes to spiritual imitation.
Perhaps the difference is that D20 games have a very clear design but they do not necessarily prescribe a philosophy, whereas OSR games are more rules light, but have a more pronounced ethos. The scope of what you are trying to achieve with your game and what is considered good play is more defined, so it is easier to form an opinion on practices. I think that might be neccessary to compensate for the lack of rules. 'You are doing it wrong,' seems to me like an excellent way to open a discussion if followed by spirited debate. If people aren't arguing for the sake of winning it should generate some new perspectives. Sometimes it seems sensible to have a binary opinion. If someone claims that drawing the entire map out and navigating the players through it versus letting them discover it piece by piece for example I can clearly state that that is a wrong opinion in 99% of the cases. When it comes to questions of player options or number of classes, the question becomes more complex and I think the first question that must be examined is 'do we have the same goals?'
DangerousPuhson
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
In your own "newbie course" synopsis, you go to some great lengths to recommend Matt Colville - does it count as a blog if it's in video format?
HypthtcllySpkng
*eyeroll*
Matt Colville pretty much only discusses 5e in the sense of how to run its core mechanics (which are functionally the same as all other editions), and regularly recommends first edition modules for learning from, and dissuades from using 5e modules and campaigns. He's more OSR-influenced than 5e, really. Plus I've seen the games he's run, they're definitely more classically minded than say matthew mercer.
The advice he gives is equally usable by any edition. I just don't think that's quite the same as what we're talking about here.
Also Colville isn't particularly eloquent or thoughtful. He just teaches the basics really well. I'm here for more than the basics, and would be looking for that in my blog hunting.
Still, I'd quote colville if we were discussing the basics, if that's what you're asking.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Yeah the OSR has a shared revisionist myth about how D&D was universally played in the old days that has always chafed a bit (especially when its coming at me from people a decade or so younger than I am). I generally don't refer to myself as an OSR gamer, not because of the system I play, but because I don't buy into the myth, or the dogma (by which I mean pedantic adherence to certain game elements procedures even when they don't make sense in context).
I like a lot of blogs that are considered to be OSR because of the thought that has been given to procedures and mechanics from the old games, either to explain why they work (and therefore when they are necessary or unnecessary) or to improve upon them. However I have noticed that a lot of those blogs don't really refer to themselves as "OSR" anymore, and some might never have done so; in fact the ones I follow are all pretty inclusive. The only one that still uses the "OSR" logo is Grognardia (and man has he mellowed during his hiatus).
I guess I like blogs that are commonly considered to be OSR when they support homebrew, including homebrew rules. But a lot of the OSR sites I no longer follow seem to hate any kind of innovation or deviation from particular rules or playstyles, which is not the "old school" that I remember. I remember Dragon magazine exploding with new classes and alternate rules and fixes to things that were broken and fixes to things that worked just fine. I mean the whole thing was about creativity. This movement toward not changing anything is seriously at odds with my memories of how we approached the game "back in the day".
I'll ask you to expand on this to make sure, but I think you have identified the source of my annoyance. I can't recognize a movement that defines itself by enforcing limitations as being "old school". To be fair, I actually don't know it this attitude is universal in the OSR; I don't detect a hint of any desire to impose limitations on play in Grognardia, for example, or in Bryce's reviews. But to the extent that this is a quality of the mainstream of the OSR, I don't think that it is old school at all.
Maybe they should call themselves "Old School Revisionists".
Angry started with one of the versions of Basic where he got at least some of his sensibilities; on the other hand I think his megadungeon project was 5e, and 5e was his primary system when I stopped reading him a couple of years ago.
Justin Alexander most definitely runs 5e, and a lot of other systems, and The Alexandrian has got to be one of the more commonly quoted sites in OSR circles.
Also, I only read the teaser for Maze of the Blue Medusa and I was seriously underwhelmed. I didn't think it was nearly as clever as it thought it was, and was thoroughly unusable.
Malrex
So ... slow work day? Every day?
I heard so many great things about MotBM....I didn't get past page 3. I thought the map was pretty creative but "unplayable" leapt into my head right away with the writing. I will probably give it a whirl again someday, but it just wasn't my jam--no offense to the authors. Felt a bit cheated.
There are other 'famous' adventures that people rave about that I find really dry and didn't juice up my creativity while reading them.
And I'm sure there are people who don't like my adventures.
The rules....or guidelines...make the older editions open to different playstyles. And everyone is passionate about their way of playing. Makes a interesting stew.
But maybe if everyone stops debating if the OSR is dead or still alive...and instead, start writing and drawing maps..........just saying.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
Preach brother!
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
So maybe that's what the OSR is. I mean the people who identify with that community anyway, because at this point, as has been mentioned above, the products have moved on from something identifiable as an old school renaissance. What remains behind are people: As gamers mature, they delve into the guts of the game, they ask how it works at the molecular level. They've moved on from cosmetic homebrews of classes and monsters or the odd nettlesome rule, and the people discussing this deep arcana they seek are the grognards. They've been playing the game the longest and often had to contend with incomplete or vague rules systems which forced them to meditate on the bare bones of the hobby from the outset.
Fresh waves of gamers have come in, used to modding their favourite video games and eager to get at the guts of their favourite RPG. That's where we're seeing turmoil as they bring mechanics abhorrent to the old guard with them to the discussion. Sometimes the friction is warranted; some mechanics or styles of play just aren't compatible with the soul of the original game. Occasionally though, I'm seeing grognards uncomfortable with mechanics or campaign settings that they just don't recognize and so dismiss out of hand.
In the end, I believe we're all here following these blogs (which could be grouped under an OSR banner even though, as pointed out, many don't actually identify as such), searching for the soul of the game. The thing that gave us that first thrill so long (or in some cases not so long) ago. We're looking to bottle that lightning and bring it to our games. That to me is the OSR.
Fresh waves of gamers have come in, used to modding their favourite video games and eager to get at the guts of their favourite RPG. That's where we're seeing turmoil as they bring mechanics abhorrent to the old guard with them to the discussion. Sometimes the friction is warranted; some mechanics or styles of play just aren't compatible with the soul of the original game. Occasionally though, I'm seeing grognards uncomfortable with mechanics or campaign settings that they just don't recognize and so dismiss out of hand.
In the end, I believe we're all here following these blogs (which could be grouped under an OSR banner even though, as pointed out, many don't actually identify as such), searching for the soul of the game. The thing that gave us that first thrill so long (or in some cases not so long) ago. We're looking to bottle that lightning and bring it to our games. That to me is the OSR.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
I think @The1True has hit the nail on the head in so many ways. Bravo.
I recently made a comment to Malex (perhaps less than tactfully, sorry!) that making new races, classes, etc. are the easiest and most obvious things to do. Every newbie gamer reaches for that immediately---we did that when we were barely out of diapers. But to quote The1True, this type of frosting is not "deep arcana", it does not touch what's at the heart of the game.
@Beoric: We all play gonzo. We all mod the rules. Imagine the hell out of it! etc. This has ALWAYS been the case---I remember it first-hand. We all try to find the formula that works for us personally as DMs---sometimes (like with OD&D) it's because the rules fail, and sometimes (as was the case with me and AD&D) we fail the rules (out of impatience/misunderstanding?)---but none of that's at the "soul" of the game. Your stated perception that someone is on a high-horse shouting dogma at you is possibly a misconception. Folks (here at least) are just telling you what they've discovered for themselves about the game and won't let you disparage or discount it. Ye old D&D "works as advertised" (or can work when used as intended)...s'not broken---really! Still, what you do in the privacy of your own home...that's your business (as well it should be!). You decide what's "right" for you---and can extol it's virtues (just don't expect anyone to agree with you
).
Point taken, my friend, but check out the title of this thread.
(Also, when we post maps, illustrations, whole adventure modules, and the like...no one responds for 10 pages. I'm sure you've heard the old truism before: Opinions are like an a-hole...everyone's got one.)
I recently made a comment to Malex (perhaps less than tactfully, sorry!) that making new races, classes, etc. are the easiest and most obvious things to do. Every newbie gamer reaches for that immediately---we did that when we were barely out of diapers. But to quote The1True, this type of frosting is not "deep arcana", it does not touch what's at the heart of the game.
@Beoric: We all play gonzo. We all mod the rules. Imagine the hell out of it! etc. This has ALWAYS been the case---I remember it first-hand. We all try to find the formula that works for us personally as DMs---sometimes (like with OD&D) it's because the rules fail, and sometimes (as was the case with me and AD&D) we fail the rules (out of impatience/misunderstanding?)---but none of that's at the "soul" of the game. Your stated perception that someone is on a high-horse shouting dogma at you is possibly a misconception. Folks (here at least) are just telling you what they've discovered for themselves about the game and won't let you disparage or discount it. Ye old D&D "works as advertised" (or can work when used as intended)...s'not broken---really! Still, what you do in the privacy of your own home...that's your business (as well it should be!). You decide what's "right" for you---and can extol it's virtues (just don't expect anyone to agree with you
).I once saw a PBS documentary once about the human brain that ended something like:
"The human brain is one of the most amazingly complex structures on Earth, and never grows tried of hearing about itself."
Point taken, my friend, but check out the title of this thread.
(Also, when we post maps, illustrations, whole adventure modules, and the like...no one responds for 10 pages. I'm sure you've heard the old truism before: Opinions are like an a-hole...everyone's got one.)
PrinceofNothing
High Executarch
I don't understand the problem, perhaps you might elaborate on why that is awful? As far as I can see every movement that exists must neccesarily posses attributes that define it and attributes that do not define it. If I describe to you a Wargame there is a set of attributes that is commonly associated with it and a set that is not with a lot of grey area in between. Advanced Recon or Battletech is absolutely a Wargame, Werewolves probably is not, but what do we think about calling 4e a Wargame?
Bryce absolutely defines what makes or makes not a good adventure based on personal preferences that fall broadly and have come to influence a common practice in the OSR, which is more reminiscent of the adventure design of old games then it was of new games. Grognardia also. It is not perscriptive but it is a pronounced preference for one method over another. It is...oldschool. In the same fashion certain elements; increased RNG, limited character options, high lethality over low lethality, one-off systems or general finicky rules, rulings not rules, emergent gameplay over railroading etc. etc. are characteristics of OSR design, broadly speaking.
I'll throw some early examples your way;
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/04/backwards-thinking.html -- Reasoned disagreement with some elements of game design
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-d-is.html -- Sense making
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/04/times-have-changed.html -- Identification of Raison d'etre
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-dragonlance-ruined-everything.html -- Identifications of problems with design philosophy
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/05/old-school-d.html -- Defenition of terms
And so it goes.
That last sentence makes you look snooty and snarky. I don't think that is your intent. On my part, I notice disparaging remarks or mockery towards grognards are more common here then disparaging remarks towards new schoolers. Is this a case of crying out in pain as one lashes out?
I understand you folks are discussing something else here, but I feel the need to diverge off topic for just a moment.
Fuck you.
Now, having defended my "Sure, whatever. everything is essentially personal preference" position, you may now resume.
Fuck you.
Now, having defended my "Sure, whatever. everything is essentially personal preference" position, you may now resume.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
I can't speak for Beoric here, but I bash my chosen system's shortcomings (including power creep and ridiculous stat blocks) all the time here. I also did some solid 4e bashing when I first got here but laid off it after fellow forum goers made strong arguments for why they're having a great time playing it. It's possible there's some self-consciousness among those of us using newer rules systems as we foray into this warm, cozy, old-school love-fest.
Also, the dismissiveness man. It gets to you, and then yeah, you lash out. As Squeen recently pointed out to me though, maybe I'm making more of it than there actually is. It's easy to misread malice in a dissenting view. That shouldn't be a surprise in the wilds of the internet, but I guess this place has a way of lulling one into complacency and then BAM. More emoticons? I dunno.
Also also, even the grognards can't get along. Reading the bile on YDIS used to be hilarious but has mostly become nauseating recently. The infighting in the scene presents a target-rich environment for those new to the scene to pig-pile onto.
Speaking for myself, I hate the Old White Man attitude.
I've found it very common on forums on which they congregate, which, for me, is OSR and Rv/Camping forums. There is a close-mindedness, combined with an authoritative voice that I find very off putting. I might summarize it as "Respect my wisdom! And Fuck you for even questioning that the Sun doesn't revolve around the earth!" The dismissisvness that 1True notes is very real as well.
I have a personal theory. I think that they close themselves off from society, new ideas and trends. Rather than be open to life they close down and shut off. This embitters them, which is then just exacerbated by the Everyone Else who continues to question and experience life. Ossification.
HypthtcllySpkng
*eyeroll*
Damn, what a good post. I'd like it twice. This, to me, feels like the answer to the thread's first post. It's people. Whatever name or philosophical ideal we give to the new era, post osr, new wave, neoOSR, thing that's coming... It will be defined by and motivated by passionate people. If we look at what WOTC is doing, we're only going to see the way a company thinks, which is always about money and is usually predictable. But if we look at the people playing and making the games outside of WOTC and the big games like CoC or whatever, we can probably find the pattern there. What the complaints are, what the praises are, who the names are, the kinds of people playing, and doing the complaining and praising.
The question is then, are Grognards the OSR? And post-OSR, have we grown from the movement ourselves, or has a new group of people started their own movement in the game?
PrinceofNothing
High Executarch
Those sorts of clarifications should be taken as observations of etiquette to allow us to interact with the normies, mon cherie. Surely you know that yours is the Fulcrum of the World?
There's a problem with online communication in that it does not transmit the numerous facial expressions and tone of voice that people use to detect nuance or context so everything you say will come off harsher then intended.
Oh yeah, YDIS at its height was pretty funny. It was, probably, in final analysis, not the best place to be from a mental health standpoint, but the bile had a joie-the-vivre to it, the trolling was funny and the targets were pretty rich. It's a cesspool now, unfortunately, haunted by bitter, lonely ghosts, rehashing tired old memes and mostly stalking Zak. It became a parody of itself. A defunct cinema where the homeless men come to jerk off and throw faeces at the wall and scream at themselves. I was going to point that out, that entering the hobby through a completely unfiltered unmoderated environment means you learn not to lash out if someone fucks with you. At some point you achieve a sort of trollish Zen and you can even discuss gaming with eachother. I think I still have...2? 3? of OGs on my blog that I met there.
Faaah! Existence is not earned by traipsing across the golden fields under the blue sky and smelling at picked daisies. Ideas must be asserted, order must be hewn from the chaos of the world and room for their posterity must be secured from the mass of their competitors!
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
It's not awful. I don't object to the playstyle, or setting limits on it. I find the characterization of it as being "old school" to be inaccurate, insofar as it claims to be based on the way games "used to be played", and mildly irritating, like people who use the word "literal" when they mean figurative. What I find really irritating is when people chastise me, or more often dismiss me, because they think I don't play the game the way it "used to be played" because the OSR has defined "how it used to be played" as something else. I played the game in the "used to be" days, by definition I play it the way it used to be played. Unless you started playing in the "nobody knows what the rules are" mid 70's period, in which case you may have been gaming longer than me, but I won't be able to take you seriously if you try to suggest there was a universal playstyle.
And to be clear, I think Bryce's criteria are by and large objective, and when he thinks his personal preferences are creeping in he calls it out. And his personal preferences are generally for things like fairy tales, which are hardly a defining characteristic of "OSR". I also don't find Grognardia to be at all dismissive or revisionist, and the page you cited from him doesn't appear to define the phrase "old school" the way you are suggesting it does.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
For godsake, someone explain Kent to me, please?!
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Why would you want that? Just back away slowly and don't make eye contact.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
Okay but,
A bunch of us here have been playing since the 80's or early 90's but we've moved on to newer systems. We retain memories of the joy we experienced with the adventures of earlier editions but preferred the mechanics of the new or just moved on with our gaming groups. The point is we're here because we share an affinity with the old, we identify as OSR or with this scene. I agree that crusty old grogs have a right to their safe spaces, but you're going to end up awfully lonely if you start getting aggressive with your edition wars...