Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gus L" data-source="post: 9372966" data-attributes="member: 7045072">Not disagreeing with anything said here, I enjoy some OD&D myself, am happy to see and hear people like old games still and I should post here looking for players when I start my next online open table campaign ... but the desire of people to play older editions (YAY!) and the health of the OSR as a movement or coherent scene are not the same thing.I tend to think the OSR has passed on - not that people don't still play in the OSR style, but it's not a coherent community, actively developing idea of play, or even a "scene" these days. I personally place the end of the OSR at the somewhat arbitrary date of the end of Google + because that's the final point that the various sub-scenes and ideas which made up the late-OSR stopped really interacting.At this point we have a distinct body of OSR ideas and OSR work (from the Mythic Underworld and OSRIC to ultralight mechanics and Into the ODD) that show a coherent development of ideas and personalities who generally interacted. In the past. These days there are multiple progeny of the OSR, from the Revivalist Reactionaries of /tg/ and BrOSR types to the people who describe their work as NSR, O5R, and whatever is left of Sworddream.  The vast majority of those using OSR to describe themselves however are simply using the term to brand their work as Pre-3E(ish) D&D compatible. That and specific brand loyalists/scenes like Mothership or OSE.  None of this is bad, it's just that all this is a collection of unique "Post-OSR" approaches that aren't in connect with the others and are happily (or caustically) evolving down different paths. It's like any other arts movement or music scene.I for example consider my own work "Proceduralist Post-OSR".  Which may just be me.</blockquote>

Verification