Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8883063" data-attributes="member: 18">OSR is actually super-weird because it has both some reactionaries, but it also has plenty of people at the exact other end of the spectrum. It's kind of surprising and fascinating. Like, I mean, I'm probably the opposite of a reactionary in a lot of ways, but a lot of the games I've loved have been technically OSR games. My #1 favourite game right now Worlds Without Number comes out of the OSR.I think it's more like do you things which are grimy, maybe grim, maybe a bit punk, maybe a bit scary? And you get people from all over who like that. It's a lot about mechanics and vibe these days.I will say when the OSR was just retroclones, it was a bit different - but it still wasn't &quot;mostly reactionaries&quot; or anything - it was if anything primarily people seeking play styles that were less complex and more fun.I'd largely agree with that.I think it's paranoia because some OSR people have been abused that way, but it's such a silly and outdated thing to be afraid of, and in fact there's even better reason it's silly:Do they seriously think the kind of people at WotC who could authorize such an aggressive statement even know what the OSR is?Because they don't. They just don't. You think Chris Cocks, Cynthia Williams or Dan Rawson knows what &quot;OSR&quot; means? I don't for one second think they do. Nor others who could authorize a statement like that.They only know Paizo, Critical Role, stuff like that. These are Microsoft people. One D&amp;D setting looks much the same as another to them. They can't differentiate Dungeon Crawl Classics and Pathfinder 1E, except to say maybe &quot;Ohh the art is very different in this one!&quot; and &quot;Oh that company makes a lot less money!&quot;.It's like, you guys just aren't that big a deal. So stop being paranoid!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8883063, member: 18"] OSR is actually super-weird because it has both some reactionaries, but it also has plenty of people at the exact other end of the spectrum. It's kind of surprising and fascinating. Like, I mean, I'm probably the opposite of a reactionary in a lot of ways, but a lot of the games I've loved have been technically OSR games. My #1 favourite game right now Worlds Without Number comes out of the OSR. I think it's more like do you things which are grimy, maybe grim, maybe a bit punk, maybe a bit scary? And you get people from all over who like that. It's a lot about mechanics and vibe these days. I will say when the OSR was just retroclones, it was a bit different - but it still wasn't "mostly reactionaries" or anything - it was if anything primarily people seeking play styles that were less complex and more fun. I'd largely agree with that. I think it's paranoia because some OSR people have been abused that way, but it's such a silly and outdated thing to be afraid of, and in fact there's even better reason it's silly: Do they seriously think the kind of people at WotC who could authorize such an aggressive statement even know what the OSR is? Because they don't. They just don't. You think Chris Cocks, Cynthia Williams or Dan Rawson knows what "OSR" means? I don't for one second think they do. Nor others who could authorize a statement like that. They only know Paizo, Critical Role, stuff like that. These are Microsoft people. One D&D setting looks much the same as another to them. They can't differentiate Dungeon Crawl Classics and Pathfinder 1E, except to say maybe "Ohh the art is very different in this one!" and "Oh that company makes a lot less money!". It's like, you guys just aren't that big a deal. So stop being paranoid! [/QUOTE]

Verification