Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8589027" data-attributes="member: 82106">Eh, I actually don't have anything against OSR style play, nor would I even particularly avoid it. I mean, its one of many valid styles of RPG, and having started back in the mid-70's myself one that I've been well steeped in <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. I was also a wargamer, though honestly I haven't really kept up with that hobby much in many years. I do tend to think there's a lot of assumptions or 'mythology' that has built up around different play styles though, which is often not all that accurate or helpful. Though I look somewhat askance at some of the attitudes that came with 'Indie Games' and I think its worth being as cautious about their own conception of RPGs as what is put forth by a lot of 'OSR People', that analysis at least is worthy of some consideration. Anyway, I think we can have Skilled Play that is not built on absolute GM authority, it is just not deploying skill in exactly the same way.And to add in view of the whole debate about nomenclature... I can sympathize with the POV that 'Skilled Play' was perhaps specifically meant by whomever used it first in a certain way. I don't know that anyone 'owns' terminology. Its purpose is to clarify. So, if we were to use 'Classic Skilled Play' or something for that one specific type, OK. I'm not sure why 'Gygaxian' is a dis to anyone though. Arneson certainly invented a lot of the core concepts of D&amp;D, or at least brought them together, but Gary certainly, at least, heavily promoted that style of play. Honestly, not having gamed with either of them I don't know exactly how their preferred styles varied. Nobody is forgetting about Dave in any case.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8589027, member: 82106"] Eh, I actually don't have anything against OSR style play, nor would I even particularly avoid it. I mean, its one of many valid styles of RPG, and having started back in the mid-70's myself one that I've been well steeped in :). I was also a wargamer, though honestly I haven't really kept up with that hobby much in many years. I do tend to think there's a lot of assumptions or 'mythology' that has built up around different play styles though, which is often not all that accurate or helpful. Though I look somewhat askance at some of the attitudes that came with 'Indie Games' and I think its worth being as cautious about their own conception of RPGs as what is put forth by a lot of 'OSR People', that analysis at least is worthy of some consideration. Anyway, I think we can have Skilled Play that is not built on absolute GM authority, it is just not deploying skill in exactly the same way. And to add in view of the whole debate about nomenclature... I can sympathize with the POV that 'Skilled Play' was perhaps specifically meant by whomever used it first in a certain way. I don't know that anyone 'owns' terminology. Its purpose is to clarify. So, if we were to use 'Classic Skilled Play' or something for that one specific type, OK. I'm not sure why 'Gygaxian' is a dis to anyone though. Arneson certainly invented a lot of the core concepts of D&D, or at least brought them together, but Gary certainly, at least, heavily promoted that style of play. Honestly, not having gamed with either of them I don't know exactly how their preferred styles varied. Nobody is forgetting about Dave in any case. [/QUOTE]

Verification