Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Nah, cranky old white guys love their echo chambers.
The state of Post-OSR content
- Thread starter Yora
- Start date
Beek Gwenders
*eyeroll*
Sigh. Let’s not ruin this board with racist comments and politics. Let’s keep it on D&D.
Apart from this particular piece rubbish, this has been a great thread to read, keep it up guys.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
Hey man, I'm not making accusations here. And definitely no politics (I took my one cheep jab for this financial quarter already and have been admonished...). If you're feeling defensive then I'm using the wrong language to get at my point. As I suggested earlier, maybe a number of us newer edition people are here to get at the soul of the game. We're using all tools at our disposal. Sometimes perhaps, that requires some chipping away with constructive criticism to get at the truth underneath. One man's criticism is another's mortal insult (I'm still sulking about Squeen's review of my adventure
)As Prince pointed out, thanks to the reader's tendency to interpret opposing words as malicious without an actual school-girl level of emojis decorating the post, things turn toxic here fast as people's beliefs are seemingly attacked.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Has that happened here habitually? If so, I am blind to it.
There are some aggressive defenders here---and you may not like how self-satisfied/dismissive they may come off---or how the go for your jugular when refuting your points. But don't lose sight of the fact that for the most part, you get silence. It's only when you throw rocks at their windows that they appear out of the long grass with an assassin's intent. To my mind, that's fair. I don't like the crude personal-shots, gruge-matches, and trash-talk, it's true---but I'm "old school" that way too. (Most "geeks" were once arrogant intellectuals---snottily above all that sort of low-brow/coarse-language/name-calling stuff. I can even recall an ancient time when the news channels prided themselves in dispassionate intellectual dissection---even impartiality! (sigh) Looking back, I think WWII had made most adults distrustful of over-passionate beliefs and reckless rhetoric.) Original point being: if you are looking for validation, you probably won't get it...but you'll generally be left alone unless ya' start somethin'. You play 4e for Pete's sake!---everyone just assumes you're nuts.
If anyone is the most vocal in expounding the virtues of OD&D/AD&D unprompted, and likely to tell you what they don't like about the changes made in subsequent editions---it's me. That's because I like to drone one and on about that-which-I-love...and because I enjoy reading the responses. And I will dismiss a lot of later-stuff as "icky", "lazy", "dumbed-down", etc. Just ignore me. I'm no authority, and there is no one lined up behind me in any sort of "movement". If I accidentally say something that resonates with another, watch closely and you'll see they disagree readily on most other stuff. We are all Islands of Thought. It's the human condition. Each post is a message-in-a-bottle.
I am honestly not saying this to be snarky...but 2e was after the corporate rot had started to set it. Seriously. If you had started a decade earlier, you might not have "moved on to newer systems". EOTB and his darn Jeep analogy...people know when they've got something special, and all the salesmen in the world get the door shut in their face with a simple "no thanks, not interested". Maybe that's even 3e for you now, dunno.
I knew that didn't sit well with you. Sorry. I thought it was better to acknowledge the work than simply ignore it. While the creativity overflowed, the organization wasn't my cup-o-tea. I'm too picky. Again: ignore me. Heck, how many modules have I published (0)...played (10?)...or ran (4?)?!? I'm turned off by >98% of what's out there (and always have been).One man's criticism is another's mortal insult (I'm still sulking about Squeen's review of my adventure
Last edited:
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
Not to pick on the poor fella, but here's a three-part series of posts that are an example of what was mentioned earlier (i.e. non-core OSR blogs filled with questions-without-answers):
In Search of OD&D
In Search of OD&D
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
You know I'm a cranky old white guy, right?
Not usually, I thought we were talking about the outside.
DangerousPuhson
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Interesting blog post you've linked squeen (if you don't mind my not ignoring you); it's telling that earlier D&D/Blackmoor had a lot more of its wargaming/realm management roots baked in than we see today (because it's safe to say D&D is no longer a war game). I mean, he didn't even see any combat and yet still felt exactly like he was playing the game in the old, original style.
Do you believe the blogger's assessment that he has effectively "reconnected" with the old-school roots he was seeking? Do you agree that what he was even experiencing are the "old school feels" people around here are so keen to recapture?
I ask because his definition of old school seems to conflict with what people on here are saying is definitively old school: Jacquayed dungeons, high mortality, fast combat rounds, rare magics, sundries management... because that stuff is mostly combat-focused enhancements with a definite move away from realm management.
Do you believe the blogger's assessment that he has effectively "reconnected" with the old-school roots he was seeking? Do you agree that what he was even experiencing are the "old school feels" people around here are so keen to recapture?
I ask because his definition of old school seems to conflict with what people on here are saying is definitively old school: Jacquayed dungeons, high mortality, fast combat rounds, rare magics, sundries management... because that stuff is mostly combat-focused enhancements with a definite move away from realm management.
Last edited:
PrinceofNothing
High Executarch
Keep it civil y'all. We are doing great!
BUT MOM THIS IS IMPORTANT I AM HAVING AN ARGUMENT ON THE INTERNET.
Okay so we are clear, it's not the fact that it defines itself or sets limitations on play, but that those limitations being imposed are not an accurate depiction of playstyle as it was back in ye olden days?
So the way I see it these things are best viewed in terms of approximation, since no two grognards are going to have exactly the same conception of what the OSR is or what oldschool play was, and no one is ever going to be able to synthesize something that exactly encompasses all the nuances of play as it was at the time. What Malezewski hints at in his article, and what I think is self-evident, is that most people agree that there exists such a thing as oldschool and newschool play and that the OSR is/can be described as: an artistic/design movement centred around re-creating and innovating games that are made in the style as they were at the time. Now that might be an imperfect synthesis, it certainly will not be universal, and even within the group there will be differences of interpretation, but it clearly exists, it serves to differentiate itself from 'new-school' or contemporary RPGs. It is perfectly possible for your game-style to take place in that period but to fall outside of the condensed average that has come to be recognized as "Old School Play", and thus Grognard A, who has apparently been telling you you were doing it wrong on some forum somewhere, can in fact tell you that something is Nicht öldenschüle and still be technically correct because it falls outside of this imperfect but valid condensation of what is commonly understood as Oldschool. Am I making sense?
You think Bryce has objective fun criteria? Do you think everyone likes the same things? Bryce's criteria are excellent practice for OSR and most standard roleplaying games, but you can always find some outlier or weird group or sub-genre that it doesn't conform or appeal too. His standards are generally good (i think his useability standards are A++), but probably not universally good.
As for Grognardia, I did not say he was dismissive or revisionist, nor does he define oldschool in the way I mentioned, I said he recognizes and imposes 'limitations' which is what you railed against initially. To define something is to render it distinct from something else and to attribute to it positive and negative qualities, in short, you impose limitations on what it is and is not. Since that was all that was needed to illustrate a perceived flaw in your statement I did that. Smiley.
What do you want to know? Kent Lore is a cross-class skill for any class, but I can do what I can. His now defunct blog was pretty awesome. He's Irish and he drinks. He's pretty vicious but sober he is a troll of great poetic wiles. He got me into reading Eddison, for which I thank him.
Good on you. Welcome to the board.
I'm not going to slap anyone on the wrist just as long as this doesn't turn into a discussion on how your fundamental right to be racist against your own people is not to be infringed or whatever other gay shit.
BUT MOM THIS IS IMPORTANT I AM HAVING AN ARGUMENT ON THE INTERNET.
Okay so we are clear, it's not the fact that it defines itself or sets limitations on play, but that those limitations being imposed are not an accurate depiction of playstyle as it was back in ye olden days?
So the way I see it these things are best viewed in terms of approximation, since no two grognards are going to have exactly the same conception of what the OSR is or what oldschool play was, and no one is ever going to be able to synthesize something that exactly encompasses all the nuances of play as it was at the time. What Malezewski hints at in his article, and what I think is self-evident, is that most people agree that there exists such a thing as oldschool and newschool play and that the OSR is/can be described as: an artistic/design movement centred around re-creating and innovating games that are made in the style as they were at the time. Now that might be an imperfect synthesis, it certainly will not be universal, and even within the group there will be differences of interpretation, but it clearly exists, it serves to differentiate itself from 'new-school' or contemporary RPGs. It is perfectly possible for your game-style to take place in that period but to fall outside of the condensed average that has come to be recognized as "Old School Play", and thus Grognard A, who has apparently been telling you you were doing it wrong on some forum somewhere, can in fact tell you that something is Nicht öldenschüle and still be technically correct because it falls outside of this imperfect but valid condensation of what is commonly understood as Oldschool. Am I making sense?
You think Bryce has objective fun criteria? Do you think everyone likes the same things? Bryce's criteria are excellent practice for OSR and most standard roleplaying games, but you can always find some outlier or weird group or sub-genre that it doesn't conform or appeal too. His standards are generally good (i think his useability standards are A++), but probably not universally good.
As for Grognardia, I did not say he was dismissive or revisionist, nor does he define oldschool in the way I mentioned, I said he recognizes and imposes 'limitations' which is what you railed against initially. To define something is to render it distinct from something else and to attribute to it positive and negative qualities, in short, you impose limitations on what it is and is not. Since that was all that was needed to illustrate a perceived flaw in your statement I did that. Smiley.
What do you want to know? Kent Lore is a cross-class skill for any class, but I can do what I can. His now defunct blog was pretty awesome. He's Irish and he drinks. He's pretty vicious but sober he is a troll of great poetic wiles. He got me into reading Eddison, for which I thank him.
Good on you. Welcome to the board.
I'm not going to slap anyone on the wrist just as long as this doesn't turn into a discussion on how your fundamental right to be racist against your own people is not to be infringed or whatever other gay shit.
Last edited:
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
I started with the Red Box in 82...
As if I have to defend my credentials lol
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
No worries man. It was all valid; just the good-bad-worse packaging that rankled. I'm going to side with the snowflake millennials I used to teach and say that I like a delicious good-bad-good sandwich
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
Yes.
I'm not saying gaming back in the day had different limitations, I'm saying there were no universally recognized limitations even then. There may be some recognizable difference between play back in the day and play now, but the standard definitions which focus on concrete things like mechanics or lethality don't capture it, IMO. Malezewski doesn't even really try, which I think is the wiser choice. I think the difference is really one of culture, which is much harder to define.
LichVanWinkle may have a been in his bonnet about this (and I think he honestly does not recognize his own emotional reaction to the topic), and he may flog the issue like a dead horse, but he's not wrong.
Bryce's useability standards are what I was referring to. His personal opinions enter into his reviews less and less.
I don't think the posts you quote define any limitations. They state some preferences and muse on a few things. I'll add them below for anyone who wants to form their own opinion.
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/04/backwards-thinking.html
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-d-is.html
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/04/times-have-changed.html
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-dragonlance-ruined-everything.html
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/05/old-school-d.html
I note the last link, which you suggested defined the terms, says as follows:
Which, as definitions go, isn't one.
He then goes on to discuss the meaning of "old school", throws around a few possibilities, and doesn't really settle on anything. It's an exploration of the topic with no conclusions drawn, not a definition of anything or a suggestion of any concrete limit.
Last edited:
Which is kind of what Jmal does- introduce an interesting idea, but dance around it in a milquetoast way without ever actually delving in or offering a platform. He's more of a historian or archivist role. Not moving things forward. Rients or Zac or a dozen others give me things I use or change my thinking.
I'll agree that the "old school" days was more a case of turning up to play & just seeing how these guys did it. I was a neophyte so didn't presume to telll people how to play. I just knew that me & my brother just nutted out & mishmashed all the bits of the boxed sets & the AD&D DMG we could understand & ignored the rest.
The late teen/20s metalheads 2 streets over who inducted my brother into the game & we could play there if we were lucky would hit bongs & be half cut during play (my brother & I were 8 & 11 at the time, played with them a couple of years on & off) & did not use the AD&D book. They had their own rules for a few things- just like one neighbour uses free parking jackpot in monopoly or the new kid from another school has a weird handball rule- you try it & keep it or shun it. I played also with a school friend whose brother played with a friend at college- when they came back to town they had Dragon magazines & a mind blowing DM art of cutting out pre prepped homebrewed dungeon map shapes on paper & adding or removing them as we explored & using miniatures. No one else did that. But it was cool. But it never became "my" way of playing.
But no "correct" way at that stage. With AD&D PHB it created more divide. AD&D was more "whole" by then.
I've only ever had 1 RL encounter with someone who joined a game & tried to tell me I was doing it wrong (as opposed to just discusing game preferences). But that was a real social outlier who loved the cruncy aspects of 3e and had some autism/asperger going on so we just didn't work it out.
My conclusion is the net lends itself to arguments because 10 people who agree with a statement, more or less will read it & move on, but the 1 dissenter will disagree... cue human nature with no need for face to face social smoothing...
My own experience of "old school" distilled is simply a preference for slimmer, less prescriptive rule sets & greater group by group modification (neither of these is absolute or exclusive). yes Rules Compendium complete (Basic to Immortal) was crunchy & exhaustive but no one I knew wanted to play that, just cherry pick it. Like we did the AD&D DMG. So that's how I sell it to new players now- an older style of D&D where we take some rules we like (ascending AC, Advantage vs fiddly bonuses. yay!), leave others & forge a playstyle we like. Basically, rules in the background for the DM to worry about, players decide what to do & it happens or the dice decide the physics engine. Go!
PrinceofNothing
High Executarch
But universally recognizable limitations back then are not a prerequisite to make a distinction between old school play then and new school play now. You can look at trends, or averages, or practices of game-design and contrast it with what seem to be the dominant traits currently and that is all you need. If you then distill from those averages a series of postulates about what is or is not oldschool you are essentially defining it (i.e. setting limitations to it) to distinguish it from things around it. The argument whether or not the OSR as it is now accurately captures the spirit of oldschool play back then is a seperate one, and one we can have, but it is a different argument. But the idea that the OSR now imposes guidelines or pillars is not wrong, and in fact, necessary, if it wants to contrast itself with contemporary design.
My problem with LichVanWinkle is that I he is not only biased, but the bulk of his content is concerned with either articles lamenting the lack of political correctness in old D&D, articles that attack fundaments of OSR thinking, revisionism (whether accurate or no, I have no interest in reading all of it, but it is revisionist) and precious little in the way of gameable material or fresh takes. When the bulk of people's articles is negative and they pose no alternative I ignore them per default, unless they are really funny.
He maintains a standard and adheres to it without bias but the standard itself is not objective or universal. His standards of useability still assume a type of use and a type of user but since they are broadly in line with the desires and properties of the market they are useful to that particular audience. His model is good because it selects things that the public (broadly speaking) wants and trashes things that the public does not want, is what I would say.
He defines oldschool as separate from newschool and in the examples I have cited he picks some very clear cut cases where the divergence begins. The fact he is not interested in puzzling out "exactly where the distinction begins" is not relevant. He mentions Dragonlance as a concrete point of divergence, and Vampire the Masquerade as a clear indicator of old design vs new design. The fact that, as Reason points out, he is wishy washy about making hard perscriptions or a definitive definition doesn't really matter, he mentions enough differences in the articles I cited alone for us to make a distinction (maybe not a good distinction!) between what he thinks is oldschool and newschool, even if the boundary is blurry, which is all I said he did.
1. He points out VtM is clearly not oldschool. --> Above quote
2. He points out that a possible point of divergence is Dragonlance. --> how dragonlance ruined everything
3. He points out a power-gaming trend that seemingly increases as time goes by --> times have changed
I can dig further and find a million points like that but the point is that, while he is not explicitly telling you THIS IS OLDSKOOL and then a picture of Gary Gygax holding a twenty sided dice, he most certainly identifies trends and points out examples of what things were and how those are different from what they are now, giving you enough data points to make a rough distinction. That's already setting limitations by definition.
I quibble on a point of order: this is not a meaningful statement and undermines your discussion.
This is only true to the extent that it is ALWAYS true. NOTHING can be seen as concrete, Descartes, and we must always question everything. "Reality is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes." Everything is opinion. But, to have a meaningful conversation we must move beyond No Accounting For Taste and put a stake in the ground and defend our molehill, asserting its reality. Otherwise we never say anything than the second and third sentences of the above quote. Further, I believe it weaken any argument when it is pointed out, akin to stating "Well, assuming my eyes and brain and the rest of me are operating in the fashion in which I expect then, yes, it is night out."
IE: given the definitions, my model is correct, regardless of the market wants of the public for ToBeRead adventures.
I have no fucking clue why this is so important to me that I continually bring it up.
Sorry, back to your own discussion now.
DangerousPuhson
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
The problem is that nobody can come up with a proper definition for what "old school" is supposed to be, and yet here were are, debating what old school is supposed to be - a question without an answer. When you get such nebulous definitions for things, then people are going to quibble about whether or not someone else is right or wrong based on their own subjective interpretation, and when that happens, you inevitably get statements that crop up as answers to the question with no answer, and arguments dismissed by virtue of being opinionated.
This is like arguing philosophy, except everyone is way less chill.
Also, when someone says "The meaning of this is X", and it's followed with "where's your evidence of that?", it's pretty flimsy "proof" to link to somebody else's blog which just says "yep, the meaning of the thing is X" in a post. That's not any sort of evidence to support an argument - that's an opinion based on another opinion. In the debate world, you would call that "being fucking terrible at debate". That's where all this "objection: opinion" knee-jerk countering is coming from - you can't just climb onto the stage, say "I'm right because this guy says the same things I do" and then mic drop.
This is like arguing philosophy, except everyone is way less chill.
Also, when someone says "The meaning of this is X", and it's followed with "where's your evidence of that?", it's pretty flimsy "proof" to link to somebody else's blog which just says "yep, the meaning of the thing is X" in a post. That's not any sort of evidence to support an argument - that's an opinion based on another opinion. In the debate world, you would call that "being fucking terrible at debate". That's where all this "objection: opinion" knee-jerk countering is coming from - you can't just climb onto the stage, say "I'm right because this guy says the same things I do" and then mic drop.
squeen
8, 8, I forget what is for
If I had the time today, I would pick that this more: i.e. let's look at Bryce's Four Pillars and decide if they are (reasonably) objective and universal or do they have some sort of baked-in assumptions of a certain type of DM-preference or play-style.
I would find that discussion interesting.
DangerousPuhson
My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
ooh, I'm taking the first stab at this one, guy-who-doesn't-exist-to-me.
Ease-of-Use: universal - everyone benefits from easy use.
Evocative: universal - nobody wants to be bored.
Interactive: debatable - interactivity is highly dependent on the interaction, which is not universal. If the goal is just more interactions in general, then it's probably universal (see: nobody wants to be bored), but only if those interactions are beneficial and not detrimental. For example, it's technically considered highly interactive if every time the party wants to go through a dungeon door they have to perform a lengthy and convoluted ceremony, but I wouldn't exactly call it "good" interactivity, unless long door ceremonies are totally your thing. Bad interactions, like ones that are tedious, repetitive, or annoying, would obviously be detrimental to a game rather than beneficial.
Design: debatable - some elements, like not hiding most of the dungeon behind a single skill check, are universally accepted as sensible. Others, like zero-tolerance railroading and use of the quantum ogre, are variable depending on the user. I think the best we can hope for is design that is, at the very least, not broken.
Beoric
8, 8, I forget what is for
It would be interesting. I'm not sure if it could be counted on to be polite to our host. I try to avoid invoking Bryce in argument because it would be bound to provoke counterarguments about what Bryce really thinks, which he may eventually feel a need to intervene in. I assume he stays out of the arguments in this forum for a reason, and I wouldn't want to drag him in against his better judgment.
The1True
8, 8, I forget what is for
Agreed. That kind of conversation does risk making the poor guy into some messianic figure and us his squabbling apostles... #LifeOfBrian