Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GreyLord" data-source="post: 7769409" data-attributes="member: 4348">It's AMAZING HOW SHORT people's memories are.  It's been less than 20 years.OSR did NOT care.  Of course, people like to try to make these things CLOSER than they actually were, or that MORE people were using them than actually WERE using them.  However, even that is not relative to the discussion.Even if you thought 2e and 3e were the same thing, the point is that the original OSR did NOT!It was very simple.  They felt that 3e was not D&D and that D&D prior to 2000 was.Everything that originally came out was made to try to either copy pre-2000 D&D (OSRIC is a primary mover of the OSR movement) or recreate it in some way.  The entire dividing line was what was D&D prior to 3e and what was then the current D&D (3e and beyond).It was not really a movement as people see it today, but what people wanted to play and/or continue to play.  They did not feel D20/3e was compatible with AD&D or other earlier D&D's (and it was not as compatible as AD&D was between 1e and 2e, or BECMI/BX and AD&D by any shot of the imagination) and hence wanted to continue to have rules which were for various reasons (OSRIC was originally to allow companies to make adventures compatible with AD&D for example).It's a clear and defined line.  There are those that have tried to hijack it (and in many ways have been successful in that with their presentation to many who never knew what the OSR was all about in the first place), but they cannot define nor change what they (the original individuals who played and created the OSR and such items) are or were.Since that time there are those who have expanded the definition to other items.  It expanded to a degree to try to include any game system that was pre-2000 with an emphasis more on games from the 1980s....which is still a pretty decent line...But the idea today that it is entirely a playstyle (and there are what we could call Old School DM's which is more freeform...and I can buy that...but OSR is different in my opinion) and thus can include everything from 5e to other new school rules is FAR too nebulous an idea.It is simply a put down on those who were the original OSR players and gamers, it detracts from what they actually did and who they are, and it actually confused people.  Because we have those who have tried to hijack the OSR (and they have been largely successful with those who were not involved with OSR ideas originally) they have made it so that when asked what the OSR is or what OSR means, there are millions of different ideas and definitions because everyone has a different idea of what free form and other thoughts are.However, it was NOT so at the beginning.  Originally it really wasn't  a "feeling" or "feels" at all.  It was pretty defined and pretty obvious.  It was rulesets trying to recreate Pre-2000 D&D.Simple.  Straight forward.  Defined.Doesn't matter how close or not the end of 2e was to 3e, as that really had nothing to do with what they were trying to recreate.  The OSR itself probably has more to being derived in a way from OSRIC (Old School Reference and Index System) as a name than most other things and it speaks for itself on what it is and what it's purpose was for.Today, as the articles in discussion provide, the idea of what Old School gaming is have become nebulous in definition in people's minds (and as I said, I blame that mostly on those who have hijacked the ideas to try to redefine it in their own image) until it can mean one thing to one individual and something entirely different to someone else.  This is why I think so many have had disagreements with what the author stated rather than what Old School gaming really used to be.Perhaps when looking at seeing the differences between Old School gaming and New School gaming one should look at the Old School gamers who have ALWAYS been old school gamers (though I think you were one too...) in their thoughts and see how much difference there really is.For me, my gaming style has basically stayed the same REGARDLESS of edition (and so some may call me an old school DM) but that does not mean that EVERY edition is Old School.  To me, it is NOT so much about playstyle...but a more defined thing.  Anyone looking at the early movement can see the obvious, it was all about pre and post 2000 D&D...it's only that even in this short time (barely less than a generation) that many seem to have forgotten, or bought into this idea that NEW SCHOOL game systems made today with NEW SCHOOL ideas are anything close to being Old School or fall under OSR.  I don't see OSR as a playstyle at all or ANY game system I played would be considered Old School.  If that were so, the OSR would never have been around to begin with.</blockquote>

Verification