Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="transmission89" data-source="post: 8279186" data-attributes="member: 6688441">Rob, a really interesting post with some great points. This is not to argue against your post (for that would be a foolish endeavour) but I guess some thoughts on what you’ve stated?I think when MOST people (for their will always be puritans of all factions thst refuse to accept a broader view) talk of schools, it’s not so much hard categorisation, merely an expression of the human tendency to try and categorise things. These things are alike. These espouse similar philosophies in their design and approaches, thus these can be grouped one way. Something I don’t think is unique to OSR as it can also apply to vastly different new wave story games and the like.Does the OSR have to evolve as a constant design goal? The intention of some games is supposed to be a recreation of then out of print rules sets to preserve them because some players enjoyed and still enjoy those rulesets. For example, does Monopoly or cluedo need to evolve in order to stay relevant (I mean yeah, they come out with special editions and twists but the core game pretty much stays the same). Does that make those games any less legitimate in the eyes of gamers?I feel this politicisation and codification is the reactionary side that I was alluding to in a prior post. For some, that can be enough (try these games as they were and enjoy them as they were). But I think this initial regression can actually benefit all. There are plenty in the OSR movement that do want to experiment and explore and created systems to do that.  The reactionary systems can provide a common starting point to explore new avenues not taken to explore new frontiers of fantasy.For example, in Dungeon Crawl Classics, Goodman calls out this tendency to revert back to TSR mechanics and encourages others to move beyond. DCC being created as a new rule set to explore and engage with the appendix N literature (which, whilst old, has lain fallow in recent years and so a new experience for some).  Others are using this baseline to twist the mechanics and presentation around what can be done with these rules paradigms. So I don’t feel it’s entirely static or fossilised either?But yeah, a great post, got me really thinking <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification