Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gus L" data-source="post: 9612789" data-attributes="member: 7045072">The concept likely comes from the forum discourse around the release and creation of OSRIC. See this 2009 post at Grognardia discussing OSRIC's advice on combat mechanics and exploration.[URL unfurl=&quot;true&quot;]https://grognardia.blogspot.com/2009/10/primary-activity-in-adventures.html[/URL]The actual phrase is harder to track down -&nbsp; I suspect because it's first use is found in either G+ discussions or on Dragonsfoot and search doesn't pull those up.&nbsp; It was already in use in the mid 2010's based on blog posts referring to it. Generally the criticism and understanding of it has been the same as what I posted above - fair combat in older systems is neither the goal of the game or especially productive for characters - it represents a significant risk and finding ways to mitigate that risk tactically or strategically are a part of sound OSR play. As I said above, an increasing number of people seem to strongly oppose the idea that &quot;OSR&quot; design disfavors combat or that it represents a risky solution for in game problems... This idea naturally ties into the OSR as a rejection of 3.5E and 4E design which was extremely combat centered. The reaction to it now is to me further proof that the OSR no longer functions as a cohesive scene or set of ideas, but instead has many different claimants and various progeny with different ideas about design.&nbsp; This makes maxims from the OSR era collapse on themselves, especially when people without much OSR knowledge appear to have begun the project of nostalgically claiming the OSR for a particular style of play based on their concepts of what OSRIC era/Old School Revival design goals were, while rejecting the majority of the OSR's history.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gus L, post: 9612789, member: 7045072"] The concept likely comes from the forum discourse around the release and creation of OSRIC. See this 2009 post at Grognardia discussing OSRIC's advice on combat mechanics and exploration. [URL unfurl="true"]https://grognardia.blogspot.com/2009/10/primary-activity-in-adventures.html[/URL] The actual phrase is harder to track down - I suspect because it's first use is found in either G+ discussions or on Dragonsfoot and search doesn't pull those up. It was already in use in the mid 2010's based on blog posts referring to it. Generally the criticism and understanding of it has been the same as what I posted above - fair combat in older systems is neither the goal of the game or especially productive for characters - it represents a significant risk and finding ways to mitigate that risk tactically or strategically are a part of sound OSR play. As I said above, an increasing number of people seem to strongly oppose the idea that "OSR" design disfavors combat or that it represents a risky solution for in game problems... This idea naturally ties into the OSR as a rejection of 3.5E and 4E design which was extremely combat centered. The reaction to it now is to me further proof that the OSR no longer functions as a cohesive scene or set of ideas, but instead has many different claimants and various progeny with different ideas about design. This makes maxims from the OSR era collapse on themselves, especially when people without much OSR knowledge appear to have begun the project of nostalgically claiming the OSR for a particular style of play based on their concepts of what OSRIC era/Old School Revival design goals were, while rejecting the majority of the OSR's history. [/QUOTE]

Verification