What is OSR about?

[Ariosto]

I personally have no use for equating some "blogosphere" with a "renaissance" in any field but bloviation.

T. Foster's use in regards to illustration, which I quoted earlier, is much more in line with what it means to me -- and that reference to "this old school renaissance" precedes by two years JohnRTroy's putative sudden proliferation of punditry.

Is some trade dress definitely nostalgic, possibly even "just nostalgic"? Maybe so! I am sure it is no coincidence that The Dangerous Book for Boys (and its companion The Daring Book for Girls) looks like an artifact from a century or more ago -- before even its intended readers' grandparents were born. The aesthetic suggests an ethos perhaps at odds with some lately considered "modern". (It avers that "Dungeons & Dragons" is still the best role-playing game, as I recall.)

 

[Ourph]

I am not going to avoid using the term nostalgia to define some of the old school when it is very clear that parts of it are aimed at nostalgia.

John, I don't care if you use the word nostalgia in every sentence you ever post on ENWorld from now until the end of time. I'm not the word police and I'm not particularly offended by the word nostalgia even when people do use it pejoratively. Bullgrit expressed confusion about people's reaction to the word. I tried to alleviate some of that confusion. There's no need to turn that into a snippy debate where we quote dictionary definitions at each other.

Keep in mind I was replying to Ourph, where he implied the very word itself was tainted.

I didn't imply anything, I think I stated my point pretty clearly. For some people (note: not me), the word is tainted with negative connotations when used in the context of OS games. Like it, don't like it, believe it, don't believe it, care, don't care. Whatever. I'm not arguing a "side", just providing information.

 

[Desdichado]

It is not "the term". Words are interpreted in contexts. That it is taken as a slight when it is offered as a slight certainly does not confuse those who -- having been told that it is not appreciated -- offer it again.

Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

Speaking of missing the context... the whole point of this discussion is that there's a wave of folks who frequently get offended when it's not offered as a slight. Your point here goes without saying.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Speaking of missing the context... the whole point of this discussion is that there's a wave of folks who frequently get offended when it's not offered as a slight. Your point here goes without saying.

If that's the whole point of this discussion, then the thread title is rather misleading. That there's a wave of folks who frequently get offended when something is not offered as a slight has nothing to do with the OSR. It is pretty universal across the board.

If the OSR is about getting offended, then so is D&D.


RC

 

[Desdichado]

If that's the whole point of this discussion, then the thread title is rather misleading. That there's a wave of folks who frequently get offended when something is not offered as a slight has nothing to do with the OSR. It is pretty universal across the board.

If the OSR is about getting offended, then so is D&D.

No, not the entire thread. The portion to which Ariosto was responding.

And pointing out that certain behavior patterns happen in other contexts is certainly a true observation, but not particularly relevent to the question of what the OSR is about.

I find it simultanously frustrating and amusing that I'm having to defend the details of what I say at every point about the OSR across multiple threads, while P&P's comments, "I don't fully understand the OSR. There's an extent to which it seems to be about nerd-rage, self-justification ("our game is better than your game and here's why") and evangelism (on the apparent theory that if you once try a Gygaxian game you'll be "cured" of enjoying later editions).", which is much more confrontational, yet not incompatible with what I've been trying to say at all, gets hardly the batting of an eyelash.

I guess I lack sufficient insider cred to make an observation that might possibly be construed as negative, even when said observation is pretty much common knowledge and accepted by plenty of folks on the inside as well.

:shrug:

 

[Raven Crowking]

And pointing out that certain behavior patterns happen in other contexts is certainly a true observation, but not particularly relevent to the question of what the OSR is about.

Sure it is.

"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, "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.

For these reasons, "Some people complain" and "Some people are easily offended" is completely irrelevant as to "what the OSR is about".

And pointing that out is relevant to the conversation, regardless of how you might or might not feel about it.



RC

 

[Desdichado]

No, it's really not. If, as I said earlier, it's a sufficiently common, or loud, or whatever vibe to OSR themed discussions that it's difficult for an outsider looking in to not see that to the point of almost drowning out whatever else is going on, you can hardly claim that its completely irrelevent.

While I may only be describing a subset of the OSR when I mention that, I'm upfront in saying that I realize it's only a subset of the OSR, and not common to the entire OSR. Meanwhile, by claiming that it's completely irrelevent to the OSR, you're also only describing a subset of the OSR, a more positive subset that you'd like to see get the identification, but you're not being up front in admitting that it's a subset and not the entirety of the movement. In fact, you're trying to present your subset exactly as if it were the entirety of the movement.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I find it simultanously frustrating and amusing that I'm having to defend the details of what I say at every point about the OSR across multiple threads, while P&P's comments, "I don't fully understand the OSR. There's an extent to which it seems to be about nerd-rage, self-justification ("our game is better than your game and here's why") and evangelism (on the apparent theory that if you once try a Gygaxian game you'll be "cured" of enjoying later editions).", which is much more confrontational, yet not incompatible with what I've been trying to say at all, gets hardly the batting of an eyelash.

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.

Incidentally, I do think there's an extent to which the OSR is about -- well, let's not say "nostalgia". Let's say "celebrating the past". Certainly, most New Wave of Pre-3e Material publishers like to use trade dress that hearkens back to the 1980s. And that makes sense: they're using trade dress that matches the content of their product and appeals to their intended audience.

But I don't think the OSR is purely about celebrating the past. The better publishers are doing genuinely new things with it.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Incidentally, and perhaps of interest to anyone who's still reading this thread: a number of dedicated people have been hard at work converting OSRIC to a wiki.

If you'd like to check it out, or help, it's at: OSRIC

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, it's really not. If, as I said earlier, it's a sufficiently common, or loud, or whatever vibe to OSR themed discussions that it's difficult for an outsider looking in to not see that to the point of almost drowning out whatever else is going on, you can hardly claim that its completely irrelevent.

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.


RC