It had to be accessible. Otherwise I never ever would have eaten there.
You are changing the analogy away fro one fitting the real-life situation.
The real life situation is:
On the internet, people interested in OSR games are constantly faced with the following accusation:
Any quality the OSR gamer ascribes to the game they like (and the specific game doesn't matter, so long as it's considered "Old" or "OSR" by whoever's writing)
besides nostalgia (Creative content, mechanics, art, anything) is denied as the reason they like it, and told that the
real reason they like it is nostalgia. Or that nostalgia is part of their desire when it's not--even when it's impossible.
Think of an analogy fitting that situation (whatever that is for you) and imagine the proper reaction to that.
There are OSR folks who:
-Could not possibly be into it for nostalgia because when they first played OSR (and other systems) they didn't know when they were written bc they didn't know where the games they played fit into gaming history.
The idea Tony proposes--that this person got into osr to experience some idea of "how it used to be" is impossible with this person
And other who:
-Could not possibly be into it for nostalgia because they didn't enjoy their experiences gaming back in the day and have since extensively " gamed around ".
In both cases and for 10 years, all over the internet, when someone asked about their experience and nostalgia, hundred of people have explained "No, I didn't have any nostalgia for old games, I like (this specific thing)".
This isn't just once, this is literally hundreds of blog posts and messages over the years.
WAY more than the ones saying anything else in my (long) experience.
And what's more, they don't just
say this: they make game design decisions and life decisions that take up hours and weeks of their lives that show that--in full awareness of their options--they willingly chose to use OSR stuff and then they and the people who use what they do enjoy it and point out emergent properties of the games that wouldnt exist if certain situations characteristic of OSR (and not necessarily any old game, just OSR) practice.
Effectively: to claim "No, these people don't understand their reasons, it's nostalgia" or "Well in addition to these things, it's nostalgia" (despite how many of them are logistically or emotionally in a situation where "nostalgia" doesn't make sense as a motivation) is the equivalent of repeating any other prejudice.
I don't care how you want to restate your analogy or how you think we got here.
I don't know or care if y;all are consciously moving goalposts or creating straw arguments or twisting words and nobody reading learns anything about games if that is or isn't true so it isn't worth arguing.
I am going to say right now some true things, and if you disagree I'd ask you to show your work:
.If and only if Tony is saying many OSR fans for whom nostalgia could not possibly be their motive don't exist then he's basically denying a lot of peoples' lived experience.
.If and only if Tony is saying many OSR fans for whom nostalgia could not possibly be their motive exist but he is assuming they are dwarfed by those for whom nostalgia IS an important factor (despite the fact that looking at the online chatter, these people specifically declaim nostalgia is their motive), where is his proof? Because claiming you know what someone wants more than they do is an accusation and requires proof.
.If and only if Tony is saying many OSR fans for whom nostalgia could not possibly be their motive exist but he is assuming they are dwarfed by those for whom nostalgia IS an important factor, why don't sales of nostalgic OSR products dwarf those of the ones created by people interested in new ideas and who feel no nostalgic pull?
If Tony thinks none of those things: Then we're done with this part ofthe conversation as far as I;m concerned.
Those 3 things are questions I am asking and statements I'm responsible for.
If Tony isn't saying any of those things:
Great. I'm not invested in any statement about Tony' rheotrical style or making accusations about him except inasmuch as he might be asserting one of those things.
Same for you.
I super don't care whether this conversation is due to bad faith or simple miscommunication. I don't care to devise a theory. That's trivial in the scheme of things.
I'm invested in the people who have put up with a lot of bs online over the years and made and traded and talked about their ideas online anyway being able to connect with anyone reading this who doesn't know much about what the OSR makes and casually assumes their must be some grain of truth to claims of OSR being about nostalgia and therefore not actually investigating.
Because the number of letters I've gotten over the years from people going "OMG I am SO! GlAD! I FINALY FOUND! (Scrap Princess, G Bone, any other given OSR creator) THANK YOU! I used to hang out with _____ people and they all told me the OSR had nothing for me bc it was only about nostalgia and now I know they were wrong but it took so long!"
I am concerned about those people--I want them to find the game they want to play fast.
So if you align with any of those first 3 hypothetical Tonys' POVs and agree with them: then I have things to say right beneath you on a webpage if you make those claims. Because it is as important as anything one could say about taste in games could be that nobody anywhere think this is a rational claim (at least not until conclusive evidence is produced). Their lives would be worse if they took those opinions as factual.
If you don't? Then there isn't a reason to keep worrying about this part of the conversation.
If Tony doesn't? Then there isn't a reason to keep worrying about this part of the conversation.
I don't care about how the conversation got here, what I care about is what you actually believe.
