Now, granted, he's talking about the OSR's relevance to him. He's not crazy enough to think that posting a couple combat flowcharts is going to cause everyone who is considered "part of the OSR" to just give up. But, even with his explanations in the post, and further explanations in the comments, I don't understand what he's talking about. On the one hand, he has an unusual fixation on the AD&D 1e combat system being the core of D&D and everything else is just filler; on the other, he says one of the goals of the OSR is freedom from prescriptive rules (eh, I can see that...) and says
I think what's interesting is that you've got the same rules-prescriptive BS in one of the OSR's foundational texts. Which, for me, implies that nobody ever played this game "by the book," and nobody's forcing you to play 3e or 4e or whatever "by the book" either.Now, my first instinct was to point out that the OSR is more than just AD&D 1e. My second instinct is to point out that the combat system is the least important part of D&D, which is why it gets changed from edition to edition or table to table, or even completely replaced (by Chainmail or The Fantasy Trip or Arms Law, back in the day, and by gods alone know what these days.)
For now, I'm just going to post the link and quotes. I'll have something to say tomorrow.
I didn't read it as "OSR bashing" myself but I guess one can interpret it that way. I just geeked out and got excited that someone actually sat down and made those flowcharts... :-)
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I don't read it as OSR bashing. As I said, he's just saying the OSR is no longer relevant to him, now that he's seen these combat flowcharts. And he's allowed to decide what's relevant to him or not.
DeleteIt's the definition that he gives for what the OSR is and what its goals are that's giving me a problem. As I said, I don't get it. I'm not sure how he arrived at the conclusion that this is what the OSR is: rabbinical analysis of the original texts (and, apparently, exclusively the AD&D 1e texts) and a mistaken belief that the original texts are less prescriptive than later editions.
I like the flowchart, but Nostack's interpretation is nonsensical. It requires an interpretation of the OSR that is very limited from the start, and excludes a lot of what people have been saying for years. I wrote up my own thoughts on the subject, posted them as a comment, and then expanded and published them at my blog.
ReplyDeleteSince an anonymous poster on the Dragonsfoot forum coined the phrase "old school renaissance" back in 2005, every couple of years a wave of "the OSR is dead" sweeps through blogs and forums before running out of breath because the meme has no legs (or basis in logic or reality). This last happened about a year ago so he needs to hold off for another 12 months or so before trying to float the idea again. It's just too soon. :-)
ReplyDelete"the combat system is the least important part of D&D, which is why it gets changed from edition to edition or table to table, or even completely replaced"
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with the premise (combat sub-system is the focus of the game), I would like to point out that almost each other sub-system of D&D has changed at some point, be it a new edition or a popular house rule.
True. But the structure around the sub-systems hasn't, at least not for a long while. The structure is the most important part of D&D. The subsystems are trivial.
Delete