Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="aramis erak" data-source="post: 8412775" data-attributes="member: 6779310">Because you misunderstand/mis-equate OSR to one specific subsetSee, right there? That's the fundamental disconnect. You're equating OSR=Dungeon Crawl. And that's a false equivalence.While many people play dungeons with old rulesets, that's a subset. The staunchest OSR advocates are using D&amp;D in the same way Pemerton is using Classic Traveller, and in ways similar to how AW is intended to be used: anything not covered by the rules is &quot;Say yes&quot;... In OSR-D&amp;D, that's mostly combat and exploration in rules, but many OSR GM's aren't doing dungeons at all, and may or may not even be using wandering monsters in the wilderness. One of the fundamental problems with the OSR label is that it applies to a lot of different things that are only related in &quot;Let's grab (Moldvay-Cook/Homes/Original) and modify it for ___&quot;... It's not a unified whole.&nbsp; The largest trend is sandbox GMing. And AW as written is pretty close to sandbox.It's also worth noting that Pemerton's approach to CT is a not uncommon Old School Renaissance Traveller GM approach. But it's not the approach of ANY Traveller GM I've played with (Invalidly small sample of about 4), and is a rare approach on COTI. In part because those special cases are inconsistent mechanically. Pemerton's quite right that Traveller implies only rolling for exceptional cases... but makes a bunch of procedural rolls, too. THinking about it, tho', those are pretty abnormal situations for most players. EG: Few traveller players will be cargo brokers nor pursers, for example, but those procedures are included to create troubles.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="aramis erak, post: 8412775, member: 6779310"] Because you misunderstand/mis-equate OSR to one specific subset See, right there? That's the fundamental disconnect. You're equating OSR=Dungeon Crawl. And that's a false equivalence. While many people play dungeons with old rulesets, that's a subset. The staunchest OSR advocates are using D&D in the same way Pemerton is using Classic Traveller, and in ways similar to how AW is intended to be used: anything not covered by the rules is "Say yes"... In OSR-D&D, that's mostly combat and exploration in rules, but many OSR GM's aren't doing dungeons at all, and may or may not even be using wandering monsters in the wilderness. One of the fundamental problems with the OSR label is that it applies to a lot of different things that are only related in "Let's grab (Moldvay-Cook/Homes/Original) and modify it for ___"... It's not a unified whole. The largest trend is sandbox GMing. And AW as written is pretty close to sandbox. It's also worth noting that Pemerton's approach to CT is a not uncommon Old School Renaissance Traveller GM approach. But it's not the approach of ANY Traveller GM I've played with (Invalidly small sample of about 4), and is a rare approach on COTI. In part because those special cases are inconsistent mechanically. Pemerton's quite right that Traveller implies only rolling for exceptional cases... but makes a bunch of procedural rolls, too. THinking about it, tho', those are pretty abnormal situations for most players. EG: Few traveller players will be cargo brokers nor pursers, for example, but those procedures are included to create troubles. [/QUOTE]

Verification