Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Mythmere wrote: Attacking the use of the term "OSR" is the new political correctness on old school boards, and it has caused people to switch over to using terms that are far less specific (and misleading), to avoid the OSR-bashers. (who generally have their own agendas).

Oh! Oh! I was doing that before it was cool, man! I hate that stupid acronym.

Really, though, as much as labels and self identification have the ability to promote unity, the other side of the coin is always their potential to be negative signifier for those outside of, or desiring to be outside of, the label. Defining what you are by holding up what you are not is age old. It just goes with the territory, until the label is thoroughly used up and the idea gets renamed, rinse and repeat.

Matthew wrote:

Mythmere wrote: Attacking the use of the term "OSR" is the new political correctness on old school boards, and it has caused people to switch over to using terms that are far less specific (and misleading), to avoid the OSR-bashers. (who generally have their own agendas).

Oh! Oh! I was doing that before it was cool, man! I hate that stupid acronym.

Really, though, as much as labels and self identification have the ability to promote unity, the other side of the coin is always their potential to be negative signifier for those outside of, or desiring to be outside of, the label. Defining what you are by holding up what you are not is age old. It just goes with the territory, until the label is thoroughly used up and the idea gets renamed, rinse and repeat.

Sure - the agenda of everyone who I have seen attack that term is someone who wants to claim a higher level of authority than one of these "new" publishers. Rather than sound like an ass by saying, "I was here first, so I am better by virtue of being first, so please don't evaluate my material based on its actual quality," they turn a term that simply means "recent new publisher" into "sinister agenda-pusher." And they shove the heads of a bunch of hard-working contributors to the hobby right under the water.

Nit-picking over whether it's appropriately a "renaissance" or an "enlightenment," or truly "old school" or whatever is navel-gazing to the highest pinnacle of navel-gazing. And lots of people got drawn into a debate over terminology without ANYONE stepping in to say "hey, doesn't anyone want to talk about the fact that there are more modules available this year than there were in the last ten years." Nope, the ball has been well hidden by people who want the mantle of authority based on a timeline instead of based on quality.

Example: Jim Raggi saying that there is new stuff better than what TSR published? Oh no, how evil, how ... rude? Wait, what does "rude" have to do with the truth of the claim? Nothing. Ball is hidden. Kask actually framed the debate properly, although his disclaimer was later lost even to him .. but he did say early on something along the lines of: "it had better be better, there have been decades to refine how it's done." But then he went on about rudeness, and it swamped the perception of the actual issue. That's as much the fault of the readers, and everyone likes a good train wreck, but even if Kask wasn't deliberately hiding the ball (and I don't think he was, I think he swamped the logic because he was pissed), the ball ended up hidden.

I am not a fan of clones in way, shape, or form. There is more then enough material out there either on the web or on the shelf that people can use to supplement their gaming needs.

I do not care what the clone is called. How many times will one attempt cloning something until it finally becomes something actually worthwhile and useful to all?

I think with all the so called clones out there right now, you can guess what my answer to that will be.

Keep your clones and I will stick with 1st Edition D&D.

To me it’s just like C&C all over again. Please don’t drag that crap over here. (Not targeting anyone in particular.)

Mythmere wrote: Sure - the agenda of everyone who I have seen attack that term is someone who wants to claim a higher level of authority than one of these "new" publishers. Rather than sound like an ass by saying, "I was here first, so I am better by virtue of being first, so please don't evaluate my material based on its actual quality," they turn a term that simply means "recent new publisher" into "sinister agenda-pusher." And they shove the heads of a bunch of hard-working contributors to the hobby right under the water.

Nit-picking over whether it's appropriately a "renaissance" or an "enlightenment," or truly "old school" or whatever is navel-gazing to the highest pinnacle of navel-gazing. And lots of people got drawn into a debate over terminology without ANYONE stepping in to say "hey, doesn't anyone want to talk about the fact that there are more modules available this year than there were in the last ten years." Nope, the ball has been well hidden by people who want the mantle of authority based on a timeline instead of based on quality.

Example: Jim Raggi saying that there is new stuff better than what TSR published? Oh no, how evil, how ... rude? Wait, what does "rude" have to do with the truth of the claim? Nothing. Ball is hidden. Kask actually framed the debate properly, although his disclaimer was later lost even to him .. but he did say early on something along the lines of: "it had better be better, there have been decades to refine how it's done." But then he went on about rudeness, and it swamped the perception of the actual issue. That's as much the fault of the readers, and everyone likes a good train wreck, but even if Kask wasn't deliberately hiding the ball (and I don't think he was, I think he swamped the logic because he was pissed), the ball ended up hidden.

There is that element to it, certainly, but there are a great variety of other motivations as well. Personally, my beef with the "OSR" label (apart from my personal dislike of the combination of words) is that it draws people both willingly and unwillingly into its orbit and association. By default, anybody who produces material for traditional adventure gaming is perceived as belonging to the larger OSR community, and has a task disentangling themselves from a host of preconceived notions about what his opinions may or may not be on a variety of subjects. Without the label this would all still exist, of course, but the label provides solidification and ease of use, a currency coined, valued, and potentially devalued by debasement. Inclusion on a voluntary basis in the OSR has always seemed preferable to me, and I saw some value in TARGA facilitating that, but that has been less than successful, possibly because too structured for the hobby.

Tholianweb wrote:I am not a fan of clones in way, shape, or form. There is more then enough material out there either on the web or on the shelf that people can use to supplement their gaming needs.

Fair enough. This is also a perfect example of the conflation of terms I'm talking about. You say, "retro-clones." You mean "recent modules," if you are talking about "supplementing" gaming needs. You are using "retro-clones" as a label for something else (i.e., modules). If you're saying you don't need clone games, then duh, most people don't. But some people find considerable use for them, which has been outlined several places by several people.

I do not care what the clone is called. How many times will one attempt cloning something until it finally becomes something actually worthwhile and useful to all?

It has to be worthwhile and useful to ALL? That's a high standard. No one will meet it. They should all quit doing anything, apparently.

I think with all the so called clones out there right now, you can guess what my answer to that will be.

Keep your clones and I will stick with 1st Edition D&D.

Anyone said you shouldn't? I doubt it.

Matthew: I agree that there is often a problem with labeling, but by the same token one shouldn't have to write a dissertation to define nomenclature before proceeding onward with any substance. It's not the navel-gazing I'm opposed to. What I'm opposed to is the fact that people attribute the qualities of a movement to a descriptive term, then proceed to act like a movement by stamping out use of the term. The real movement is the anti-OSR terminologists, not the independent publishers.

It has to be worthwhile and useful to ALL? That's a high standard. No one will meet it. They should all quit doing anything, apparently.

I see and by your unique insght, that means people can play any edition of D&D they want without having to be insulted by their choice by people who feel they are playing the wrong game? Interesting. I have been reading a lot of the old posts here on this site of which i just joined and I see bits and pieces of hatred for certain editions of D&D and other "clonish" things. Why bother attacking people's personal choice of edition since my high standard is not feasible? I am not saying you do this but just reading other posts as I am bored.

If you're saying you don't need clone games, then duh, most people don't. But some people find considerable use for them, which has been outlined several places by several people.

Yes, I did read some of those posts and still do not see the the reason behind using clones. Please point me to the point of why one should consider using a clone like this OSRIC clone or OSR clone or this S&W clone. I just would like to see why there is great interest in using these clones. Curiosity is a bad habit of mine.

Anyone said you shouldn't? I doubt it.

I never said that and if someone did, i would certainly correct them on the spot.

Note: I have not been able to nest these quotes to where they work exactly right. I hope it's clear who's saying what; this is the best I can manage...

Tholianweb wrote:

It has to be worthwhile and useful to ALL? That's a high standard. No one will meet it. They should all quit doing anything, apparently.

I see and by your unique insght, that means people can play any edition of D&D they want without having to be insulted by their choice by people who feel they are playing the wrong game? Interesting. I have been reading a lot of the old posts here on this site of which i just joined and I see bits and pieces of hatred for certain editions of D&D and other "clonish" things. Why bother attacking people's personal choice of edition since my high standard is not feasible? I am not saying you do this but just reading other posts as I am bored.

My point -- look at your earlier post and read it from the perspective of someone who plays a retro-clone. The tone of your post is insulting to their game. Not the other way around.

Bits and pieces of hatred here for 1e and 0e are usually stomped on, although there has been a trend of 0e vs 1e that I don't like, and that admins have noticed with discomfort. The site's focus is on the Gygaxian editions, and clones are generally accepted as part of that, OSRIC in particular. Discussion of 2e, 3e, and C&C aren't allowed (based on past precedents of bad edition wars), and to a large extent that rule tends to be enforced only after 2e or C&C has been bashed, which isn't really fair, but is often the case.

However, if we're talking about attacks on 1e or 0e, those are very unusual, are usually VERY specific as to rules when they happen, and I will venture on a limb and say it's not the pro-clone folks who are doing it. Might be wrong, but that's my impression.

If you're saying you don't need clone games, then duh, most people don't. But some people find considerable use for them, which has been outlined several places by several people.

Yes, I did read some of those posts and still do not see the the reason behind using clones. Please point me to the point of why one should consider using a clone like this OSRIC clone or OSR clone or this S&W clone. I just would like to see why there is great interest in using these clones. Curiosity is a bad habit of mine.

From above, here is one of mine, but there are lots of times that basically the same ground has been covered (Foster's post about why S&W has a different value-calculation is another).

The second goal (completely independent of the first one) is to:
(a) provide tool for introduction of new gamers to old gaming, and
(b) for S&W, to be a usable table-substitute for very expensive original books.

(a) is important only to those who are trying to pick up new gamers for old gaming. But for these gamers, the cheap-and-easy clone approach lowers the "barriers to entry" for a new gamer. (b) is only important to those who want to play 0e, but for 0e gamers S&W is a definite resource -- as Foster says, the calculation is very different based on the pricing of the books on ebay/amazon. If AD&D books ever become $50 a pop ($150 for a set), then OSRIC is going to be in the same position.

Anyone said you shouldn't? I doubt it.

I never said that and if someone did, i would certainly correct them on the spot.[/quote]
So would I. Possibly even consider banning them, and definitely send a pre-ban warning. People have been banned for that in the past.

Tholianweb wrote:Yes, I did read some of those posts and still do not see the the reason behind using clones. Please point me to the point of why one should consider using a clone like this OSRIC clone or OSR clone or this S&W clone. I just would like to see why there is great interest in using these clones. Curiosity is a bad habit of mine.

People should play with the clones* for one very good reason; you want to play AD&D, B/X, or OD&D and the clones are far more affordable and accessible for you and your group. Out of my table of 6-8 players only 3 of us played AD&D back in the day and two of us have our old books. Buying a professionally made book or pdf is often cheaper and easier than getting a copy of the originals.

Now, that's not always the case. I think there was a link to an Amazon listing earlier in this or another thread for some cheap AD&D books. But, I happen to be in the position of introducing 3-4 people to AD&D who have only receintly been introduced to gaming, let alone have the books. Getting a copy of Swords and Wizardry Complete lets us have a set of rules that everyone can have cheaply and quickly. (When it comes out, and we start back up in January so we're all good.)


* An interesting phrase with all sorts of delightful connotations.

Mythmere wrote: Matthew: I agree that there is often a problem with labeling, but by the same token one shouldn't have to write a dissertation to define nomenclature before proceeding onward with any substance. It's not the navel-gazing I'm opposed to. What I'm opposed to is the fact that people attribute the qualities of a movement to a descriptive term, then proceed to act like a movement by stamping out use of the term. The real movement is the anti-OSR terminologists, not the independent publishers.

I would say it is pretty much inevitable that a label will emerge and the process will go on, and my personal dislike is also rooted in acceptance of that inevitability. As far as movements go, I think it cuts both ways. There will be people encouraging the use of OSR for their own ends, and others seeking to undermine its use for their own. Once you have a self identified label it is certainly easier to attack those associated all at once, even indiscriminately. For my part, I begrudge neither party, as I think it is part of human political nature, but am not inclined to throw in with either.

Matthew wrote: As far as movements go, I think it cuts both ways. There will be people encouraging the use of OSR for their own ends,

Actually, you have me here. I've seen this too, and I can understand why someone would go after it. Fair enough, you are correct insofar as this part of it goes.

My point -- look at your earlier post and read it from the perspective of someone who plays a retro-clone. The tone of your post is insulting to their game. Not the other way around.

I can understand how one "may" look at my comment as insulting and all I can say is that the only way to never insult anyone is to never post anything at all. This is the internet and all I am speaking to is a screen name. I cannot help how someone feels when they read a post especially mine but if they have a problem with it, they can always talk to me in the PM portion of this board.

If I really wanted to insult someone, I would use very colorful language of which I despise because I am better then that and will not lower myself to such a standard.

Now, I do play other editions of D&D except 4th and I know of the bitterness but I look at like this, oh well, I am having fun and knowing that my personal choice of playing games makes people irate only makes me stick to my guns and play more. ;D

The flip-side of the terminology problem is that at least one "OSR" publisher (James Raggi) very much has tried to co-opt the term not just to indicate a publishing phenomenon but as a "movement" that he is the lead proponent and poster-child and #1 cheerleader of, and which he curates the membership-list of. So it's not just outside naysayers and critics setting up strawmen, it's at least one very prominent insider saying loudly and repeatedly "there is a bandwagon and you're on it whether you want to be or not (and, btw, I'm driving)." So to people who don't want to be on Raggi's bandwagon -- who might, in fact, viscerally hate James Raggi and think he's an annoying self-important douchebag fuckstick -- the burden is on them to distance themselves from being de-facto part of a movement they want nothing to do with but have been included in without their consent. I know if I were producing commercial product (which, thankfully, I'm not) I would be going out of my way to make it very clear to everyone that James Raggi does not speak for me and I have never been a part of and want nothing to do with his "movement," because it would make me physically ill to think that people out there might mistakenly put him and me in the same boat.

Tholianweb wrote:

My point -- look at your earlier post and read it from the perspective of someone who plays a retro-clone. The tone of your post is insulting to their game. Not the other way around.

I can understand how one "may" look at my comment as insulting and all I can say is that the only way to never insult anyone is to never post anything at all. This is the internet and all I am speaking to is a screen name. I cannot help how someone feels when they read a post especially mine but if they have a problem with it, they can always talk to me in the PM portion of this board.

True, and I wasn't using you as the extreme example by any means. I meant to point out that general perceptions of insults are often based on things that aren't actually meant. And I'm holding you to a double standard of sorts, because I've just been saying to Matthew that complete precision on the net is a silly thing to expect. My point stands, but it stands in a definite grey area.

Now, I do play other editions of D&D except 4th and I know of the bitterness but I look at like this, oh well, I am having fun and knowing that my personal choice of playing games makes people irate only makes me stick to my guns and play more. ;D

You aren't alone in being someone who plays other editions, here, including at least one admin I know of. I just wanted to give you some of the historical landscape of this particular site, because it's not symmetrical here (meaning that you might have seen attacks on some editions without realizing that other editions are protected) - attacking 1e is bannable, attacking 0e is something that would probably get a PM warning, attacking OSRIC would get a PM appeal or a public reminder, attacking S&W would probably be tolerated but get fired at, attacking something 2e or later should just get the thread locked but is often allowed to go on for quite a while. A long time ago the decision was made that as an "old school Gygaxian site" we weren't going to try to be universally fair or tolerant, we were going to structure the site around its actual purpose.

Also, based on Matthew's point, I think I have to fold my argument. Or at least tone it way down.

There has been use of the term OSR as a tool by various people in the past (at the time of the disputes) and I probably conveniently forgot about that. But I do remember trying not to use that - when I was in the lulu sales competition I asked people only to buy stuff if they really wanted it, not to support a "cause." And if I felt the need to say that, then yeah, there was a reason why I felt I needed to say it.