What is OSR about?

Desdichado · Mar 31, 2010

Raven Crowking said:
If you find that argument compelling, so be it.

However, I think that what you are seeing is as much about observer bias as it is about what is there. IOW, when you are painting with that brush, you colour not only those you wish to paint, but yourself as well. As I said earlier.

Whereas, I find it mind-boggling that you continue to deny that it's an important component of the OSR, or imply that it says something about me instead of about the OSR. Until I started really digging into it and reading some of the better blogs in the OSR blogosphere, that's the only thing the OSR was to me, because it was the only thing I could see.

That doesn't have anything to do with me, and everything to do with the OSRians who tended to hang around and post in the same D&D related forums I did.

Desdichado · Mar 31, 2010

PapersAndPaychecks said:
I think it's less about insider-cred, Hobo, and more about phrasing. I was using the first person indicative rather than the emphatic declarative.

In other words:

"The OSR is about nostalgia" ---> people taking offence, generating argument; but
"I think there's an extent to which the OSR is about nostalgia" ---> people politely disagreeing, generating reasoned debate.

Admittedly, it's very easy for me to say that. I might have some "insider-cred", because there are perhaps some people who might perceive me as a bit of an authority on these things, but I do think how we use words is an important aspect of this.

Are you trying to say that, "The OSR is about nostalgia," in any way whatsoever actually resembles what I said in this thread? Because I assure you, I went out of my way to not say that.

Even if I may have thought it, at least a little bit.

Raven Crowking · Mar 31, 2010

Hobo said:
Whereas, I find it mind-boggling that you continue to deny that it's an important component of the OSR, or imply that it says something about me instead of about the OSR.

I'll grant you that you may well be reading things I am not, and so might be coming from a different perspective. You are welcome -- more than welcome -- to cite your evidence!

But I don't deny that being a living creature is an important part of the definition of fish, or that being African might be an important part of the definition of some specific species of fish. Likewise, I don't deny that some OSR folks are evangelical, or that some are easily offended.

"Living" is part of the definition of fish, but it does little to help define fish from, say, lions. If X is a quality of a broad group, of which Y is a subset, trying to define that subset by quality X is not very helpful.

Likewise, being evangelical occurs AFAICT in roughly equal parts across all groups of gamers -- it just isn't as easy to see, perhaps, in the majority group -- and thus does little to help define OSR folks from, say, 4e folks. If X is a quality of a broad group, of which Y is a subset, trying to define that subset by quality X is not very helpful.

Similarly, being easily offended occurs AFAICT in roughly equal parts across all groups of gamers, and thus does little to help define OSR folks from, say, Pathfinder folks. Again, if X is a quality of a broad group, of which Y is a subset, trying to define that subset by quality X is not very helpful.

"African" is a part of the definition of some fish, and some lions, but not a quality of all fish or all lions, so trying to use "African" as a means to describe fish (or to differentiate fish from lions) is not going to be very helpful.

"Evangelical" is a part of the definition of some OSR folks, and some current edition folks, but not a quality of all OSR or all current edition folks, so trying to use "evangelical" as a means to describe OSR folks (or to differentiate OSR supporters from supporters of the current edition) is not going to be very helpful.

"Easily offended" is a part of the definition of some OSR folks, and some current edition folks, but not a quality of all OSR or all current edition folks, so trying to use "easily offended" as a means to describe OSR folks (or to differentiate OSR supporters from supporters of the current edition) is not going to be very helpful.

The minute you start painting "Them" with a broad brush, you are also saying something about yourself. I don't see any way around that. I don't see how it really matters who "They" are. And, if the broad brush you are using isn't something flattering, what it says about you isn't, either.

RC

PapersAndPaychecks · Mar 31, 2010

Hobo said:
Are you trying to say that, "The OSR is about nostalgia," in any way whatsoever actually resembles what I said in this thread? Because I assure you, I went out of my way to not say that.

Even if I may have thought it, at least a little bit.

I'm trying to say that I could hear you thinking it.

Desdichado · Mar 31, 2010

Raven Crowking said:
The minute you start painting "Them" with a broad brush, you are also saying something about yourself. I don't see any way around that. I don't see how it really matters who "They" are. And, if the broad brush you are using isn't something flattering, what it says about you isn't, either.

What I continue to repeat, and you continue to ignore, is that I've continually gone out of my way to restrict my "them" to a subset of the OSR, and since I've also done absolutely nothing to identify them, I remain baffled by your insistence that I'm painting with a broad brush and that there's some snide implication about me personally because of it. I am, in fact, deliberately, carefully, pointedly, purposefully and decidely painting with a very narrow brush. Also, if you're reduced to making personal attacks against me because of my position, couched as they are in pseudo-polite passive aggressiveness, I'd assert that you're at a point where you want to re-examine your position.

But, I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm repeating myself ad nauseum here, and that you're going to continue to exhibit what I am forced to see as wilfull obtuseness by this point, so ... eh. I'm done.

Bullgrit, don't take my word for it, or Raven's. Go check out the OSR blogosphere. Go hang around OSR-themed forums. Decide for yourself what kind of "vibe" you perceive. Us arguing about our different perceptions isn't going to go any farther than it already has.

PapersAndPaychecks said:
I'm trying to say that I could hear you thinking it.

Considering how deliberate I've been in the wording of my posts in this thread, that would be quite a feat.

Is psionics accepted by the OSR, or is that too new-fangled a concept, anyway?

PapersAndPaychecks · Mar 31, 2010

Hobo said:
Considering how deliberate I've been in the wording of my posts in this thread, that would be quite a feat.

Well, I think I understood what you were saying, and I think I understood what you weren't saying as well. And I don't necessarily disagree with you.

Hobo said:
Is psionics accepted by the OSR, or is that too new-fangled a concept, anyway?

Mind flayers are old-school and cool!

Player character psionics are probably a bit less widely-accepted.

Raven Crowking · Mar 31, 2010

Hobo said:
What I continue to repeat, and you continue to ignore, is that I've continually gone out of my way to restrict my "them" to a subset of the OSR

Then we agree. It is a subset of the OSR in no way different than the similar subset of current edition fans, and therefore in no way unique to, or definitive of, the OSR.

and since I've also done absolutely nothing to identify them, I remain baffled by your insistence that I'm painting with a broad brush

These two things are linked.

A subset that is conflated with the set, yet isn't identified as a particular subset, can seem an awful lot like a broad brush painting the set. But since we agree that we are only a subset of the OSR in no way different than the similar subset of current edition fans, and therefore in no way unique to, or definitive of, the OSR, I think we are on the same page now.

I'd assert that you're at a point where you want to re-examine your position.

Could be. I'm no more immunte to observer bias than anyone else.

RC

Bullgrit · Mar 31, 2010

Hobo said:
Is psionics accepted by the OSR, or is that too new-fangled a concept, anyway?

Psionics are as "old school" as weapon vs. AC, rate of fire, speed factors, save or die poison, and 18/00 Strength. They're in the AD&D1 PHB, DMG, and all the monster books.

Bullgrit

M.L. Martin · Mar 31, 2010

Bullgrit said:
Psionics are as "old school" as weapon vs. AC, rate of fire, speed factors, save or die poison, and 18/00 Strength. They're in the AD&D1 PHB, DMG, and all the monster books.

Bullgrit

Actually, they may be older school than even some of those--I believe psionics first show up in Eldritch Wizardry.

Betote · Apr 1, 2010

For me, the old school movement means looking back to games which were abandoned for being "old", because the company that made them ceased to exist, because a new edition was created, etcetera.

For some years now, people have come to accept that, sometimes, they got it right the first time. Because, let's face it, if we hadn't had fun in our first years of gaming, we wouldn't be still doing it, right? So, there must be something in those experiences worth saving.

And we look back, with nostalgia, yes, but also with a scientific interest in discovering what made those games so good and fun for us, and we try to recreate those qualities in our current tables. For some, it's the rules; for some others, it's the sandbox exploration; for some others, it might be the DM-vs-Players mindset, the settings, the art of the Gygaxian prose. Becasue the truth is, each of us had fun for different reasons, and therefore what we get from our old school investigation is something different.

And yes, there are some really obnoxious people in the OSR. Name a hobby or group of individuals which hasn't.