Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 5132756" data-attributes="member: 32740">I believe that what is now percieved as OSR (Old School Revival/Renaissance) began with the introduction of 3rd Edition.  While there was possibly as much objection to the introduction of 2nd edition the objectors did not have a widely accessible form of group communication as we have now on the internet.  Oh, the internet was THERE, it just wan't widely available.  Interestingly, I recall at the time of 3E that those who objected to 3E seemingly on general principles were typically called Luddites as opposed to grognards.  Anyway, in addition to being able to complain publicly and have those complaints widely seen there was another important difference from the time of the introduction of 2E as a new edition - that is that the previous editions would cease seeing any and all official support. Furthermore, it's my perception that the WotC approach to the game began to differ.  The official rules were presented as being quite paramount.  They never said the official rules should trump your personal preferences and house rules, but they seemed quite happy to let you believe that to be the truth.  They way they came to structure their new ruleset also DISTINCTLY shifted a large portion of control of the game away from the DM and into the hands of the players. Certainly, I personally came to find this ever more objectionable.  It may not have constituted the causes/effects of the "movement" but it comprises my own motivations for embracing it. Someone asked upthread that if they preferred to use a newer edtion but in a different way if they were to be considered OSR.  YES, they would because they reject the idea that the rules as presented must be obeyed and that ANY way they choose to use them within their own gaming group is not just viable but PREFERABLE to assuming that someone else knows best how you and your group can/should employ any rules. Understandably, there came to be a wider and wider disconnect between those who enjoyed more personalized-yet-freeform rulesets and those who seemed to know only that newer=better(always) and official=superior to houserules because someone thought it more profitable for EVERYONE to believe such things.  This is why my mantra is that Old School is not about what edition you play - but how you play it.  Too many seem to be coopting the "OSR" as closer to an Edition War - that newer editions are objectively inferior.  The differences then in what OSR is supposed to be a bout can be subtle, but it's important to distinguish. As an Old School adherent I believe that while I prefer the older mechanics it does not affect MY enjoyment or game preferences a whit that someone else should find 4E mechanics wildly preferable.  I believe that it is not just preferable but a superior approach to the game for the DM to have broad, sweeping powers of absolute authority - but to be expected to rule with as light a touch as possible.  I don't care that some people prefer character construction in and of itself as the key to enjoyment of the game but strenuously object to the rules themselves not embracing with equal fervor the possibility that as much or even vastly more can be made of other aspects of gameplay. Such are the concepts that OSR SHOULD be promoting, IMNSHO.</blockquote>

Verification