Welcome to Open OSR.This thread is for open OSR discussions. Including old-school D&D, retroclones, and broader OSR-adjacent games.There is a general for those of you who prefer OSR games strictly inspired by the first decade D&D that can be found here >>98234882Please do not engage with trolls.Previous thread >>98234840Thread Question:>>Do you like mostly human centric settings or setting with more diverse races?
>>98246104To answer my own question, I like diversity in setting when it comes to races. I do enjoy more interesting takes if you are using the "standard" races, but I always enjoy a few non standard options in my settings too.
Most settings I do are "human-centric", in that humans make up 50%+ of the people you'd encounter, but I don't really like it when it goes too extreme and it's practically a "human-only" setting.I do like elves being rare though, like borderline mythical. Really, any creature that's lived for over 300 years should be treated like a legendary artifact.
>>98246303>>300 years should be treated like a legendary artifact.I think d&d making elves do long lived has caused issues with elven characters. You are either 100 year old teenagers or really shelled and incompetent 300 to 500 year olds.
My AD&D group always plays humans, me included. Years back we'd get someone trying a different race, but it's been a while since then.Complete opposite with my OSE group though. Right now it's a goblin, two drow, and a chaos knight.
>>98246352People love goblins. They seem a popular race now days.
Anon, there's a mistake in the OP:>There is a general for those of you who prefer OSR games strictly inspired by the first decade D&D that can be found here >>98234882All OSR games are strictly inspired by first decade D&D.
>>98246397>People love goblins. They seem a popular race now days.Thank you for this very insightful and organic comment.
>>98246303>I do like elves being rare though, like borderline mythical. Really, any creature that's lived for over 300 years should be treated like a legendary artifact.>person walking around who's older than the Declaration of Independence
>>98246104>>Do you like mostly human centric settings or setting with more diverse races?Yes. I like both styles of settings. I even like only human settings. The only thing I don't like is when a setting has furries or other freakshit in it.>early Forgotten Realms: cool>Hyborean Age/Conan's world: cool>Greyhawk: cool>Early Azeroth: hell, even this is cool, when the closest thing to a furry was a minotaurBefore some pedantic cunt mentions it, anthropomorphized animals can be fine, as long as they're monsters (think bullywugs, deep ones, etc). They're in some of my favorite settings. Playing as them, or having them be anything other than lower species, or ancient races like serpent men, is the freakshit that draws in the undesirables.
>>98246104Mine are diverse, but really they're a bunch of different flavors of human desu. I spent half a decade back in the 90's trying to fuck with D&D in a classic attempt to do the Tolkien-esque "Elves and dwarves feel properly *inhuman* and *fantastique*". Eventually I came to conclusion D&D is just not the game for that shit. Dwarves, elves, and any other playable races are essentially humans psychologically, since that's how players are going to portray them. Instead, I lean into non-human races being really weird biologically and culturally.
>>98246680Fair enough. I think the whole anthropomorphized races can be fine, but there is a line that crosses into "furry" but honestly its one of those "I know it when I see it" things. It's there, it's just really hard to pinpoint, but damn it's clear when you see it.>>98246717They are fantasy "humans with funny for heads" for the most part, yes. You can make them feel different. Most settings just don't.
Continuing the discussion from the almost-dead thread>>98246787>Dude, you not liking something isn't you "calling out lies".Whether I like something or not has nothing to do with whether it is OSR or not. There's lots of things I like that are not OSR, and lots of things that are OSR but I don't like.>You sound like a flat earther.That comparison is not as smart as you think it is.
>>98246749>ARGUMENTUM AD POPULEMFor the hundredth time since February, you should stop using words you don't understand, and you do this all the time. What the fuck's a "POPULEM", ignoramus?
>>98246833lmao you even wrote it twice:>>98246749>Argumentum ad Populem>ARGUMENTUM AD POPULEM
>>98246749>subjective opinionsIt's not a subjective opinion that 2e is not OSR, just like it's not a subjective opinion whether ketchup is a pasta alfredo ingredient.
>>98246833>What the fuck's a "POPULEM", ignoramus?Third-person plural present subjunctive inflection of popular, apparently. In actual linguistics, this is known as "common use" or "descriptive definition"; your insistence upon it as a fallacy reveals the depths of your lack of understanding.>>98246850>It's not a subjective opinion that 2e is not OSROnly if you assume "OSR" to have a specific prescribed meaning, which 4chan is simply not equipped to enforce.
Please keep the off topic discussion out of this thread. Thank you
>>98246917>Third-person plural present subjunctive inflection of popularLMAO you just asked ChatLGBT and are parroting its hallucination, you fucking subhuman garbage.>In actual linguisticslmao shut the fuck up about actual linguistics if your command of Latin is so nonexistent that you not only ask an LLM what "populem" means, but you also gobble up its hallucinations.
>>98246104Nah I like the different races to make things more interesting. My world has a ratio of 70% humans/10% elves/10% dwarves/10% everyone else.
>>98246917It's not "prescribed" that ketchup is not an ingredient of alfredo sauce. Nor is it an opinion. It's a fact. Due to the fact that fucking Alfredo, whoever the fuck he is, didn't use ketchup in it.
>>98246964>>98246917Well, one of you is correct, and it's not the one that thinks AD&D 2E is OSR.
Let's get a reality check here, guys: this is a thread for OSR and OSR adjacent system, the meaning of which is clear to everyone except fishfag, who thinks Marvel Super-Heroes is OSR. If NuSR, a lot of which is story shit anyway, is on topic for this thread, the 2e is on topic for this thread, because any change it makes to AD&D is actually kinda small compared to the changes NuSR stuff makes to B/X. That's all that matters: is it on topic or not?
>>98246942Anon, you even linked to the last thread:>Previous thread >>98234840Why did you do that if you didn't want the conversation to continue?It's completely normal to continue discussions from one thread to the next one if you structure it like a general.If you don't like that, which is perfectly legitimate, you should use a different topic and OP each time.
2e is on topic here, arguments if it is or is not OSR is not on topic. There is a thread in the OP for those who wish to only talk about pre 84 based games. Go there is this threads topics are not to your liking.
>>98246987>Fishfag calling to raid /osrg/ once again.Your obsession with taking over /osrg/ is unhealthy.Additionally and more importantly, nobody is "flooding" anything, and nobody is "hating" anything, we're just discussing your claims that 2e is OSR. (It isn't.)
>>98247018That is off topic, troll elsewhere. Talk about games or the TQ. That tired argument is off topic here.
>>98247028You implicitly claimed that 2e is OSR is in the OP, when you said>There is a general for those of you who prefer OSR games strictly inspired by the first decade D&D that can be found here >>98234882So of course there's going to be a discussion about your claim.You don't get to lie about /osrg/ and then demand that your lies not be called out.
>>98247030Off topic.
>>98247037Take your off topic trolling elsewhere
>>98246969Fair enough, a lot of folks like a human centric game. I like a bigger split myself
>>98246917>Third-person plural present subjunctive inflection of popularYou think "popular" is a verb? Where the fuck did you go to school, subhuman?
>>98246942This. Ignore the desperate troll.
>>98246397I blame WoW.Actually, I blame all the goblin porn, but in polite company I blame WoW.
>>98247072Very insightful and organic comment. Thank you for bringing the discussion back to the on-topic high quality discussion that this thread deserves.
>>98246964>LMAO you just asked ChatLGBTNo, I used normal-ass AI-disabled Brave search and copied it out of the Wiktionary result for the instance of it you put so much emphasis on.>lmao shut the fuck up about actual linguistics if your command of Latin is so nonexistent that you not only ask an LLM what "populem" means, but you also gobble up its hallucinations.English is plenty populated enough with grammar terminology to engage with linguistics without direct Latin fluency, a great many Latin sayings do not have high integrity to the original language's meaning, and a Chadian cuckoldry forum is not the place for technical rigor to begin with. Also learn to check your spelling, because that E you have AGAIN put in place of a U turns it into a Portuguese word.>>98247055See above. Screeching retard spelled the word wrong, directing search to the wrong term.>>98246971Prescriptive definitions are those asserted due to various logical constructions of what terms "ought" to mean. The insistence that OSR must mean only the first decade "style" of D&D without exception such that it excludes the whole of AD&D 2e is an example of such that demonstrates well the issues, because ACKS is a hell of a lot farther from most of this period than the vast majority of 2e is.
>>98246677I would be 100% for a campaign that consists of running around, tracking down elves, and then stuffing them into crates and shipping them off to a museum.
>>98247094Bro. A) You're objectively wrong. See: >>98246980B) 2E is not OSR according to the /osrg/ definition. C) >Broadly, OSR games encourage a tonal and mechanical fidelity to Dungeons & Dragons played as intended by its creators from 1974 to 1983 — less emphasis on linear adventures and overarching metaplots and a greater emphasis on player agencyACKS does this. AD&D 2E does not.
>>98247094I'm glad we're descriptivists so sping gaetngfis nuclear ham sandwisch is ascending AC.
>>98247094You're arguing with literally the dumbest troll on this board.
>>98247072It was a lot of things over the past 30 years. How people view fantasy has changed. But wow was a big one for sure.
>>98247118The goblin popularity boom was definitely in the last ten or so.Goblins always had some popularity, but it was always as a little gremlin who did silly things in MtG or died by the hundreds in RPGs. Now, they're monstrous PCs and waifus.
>>98247104Take this off topic argument elsewhere
>>98247094>copied it out of the Wiktionary result for the instance of itLMAO you looked up "populem" and copy-pasted it without realising that it's a verb in PORTUGUESE, not Latin, you fucking ignoramus.>English is plenty populated enough with grammar terminology to engage with linguistics without direct Latin fluencyYou're at least expected to be able to spell the terms that you use. It's not "argumentum ad populem", you fucking illiterate subhuman. If you were't both illiterate and retarded you'd have realised it when wiktionary told you it's a PORTUGUESE word, idiot.>a great many Latin sayings do not have high integrity to the original"Argumentum ad populem" is not a Latin saying, idiot. It's something you've made up. It doesn't exist.>Screeching retard spelled the word wrong, directing search to the wrong term.LMAO you're the one who spelled it wrong, idiot.And you didn't even realise after checking it on wiktionary and discovering that it's Portuguese instead of Latin.
>>98247128>monstrous PCs and waifusExcellent comment. Thank you for this very organic OSR discussion.
>>98247145didn't the mods only banish us from the osrg?
>>98247129Oh fishfag. The jannies disagree that it's offtopic, so no. I think I'll be staying and you can stay mad about it.2E is not OSR.ACKS is OSR.Populem is not a proper declension of populus
>>98247161>2E is not OSR.True.>ACKS is OSR.Based.>Populem is not a proper declension of populusLatinpilled. Have an Alexander.
>>98247104>A) You're objectively wrong.As mentioned, this is because the instance of the word searched for was subject to a typo, which was repeated again in yet another quoted line. See for yourself:https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/populem>B) 2E is not OSR according to the /osrg/ definition.Which is not functional with general use because there are no barriers to entry to enforce it with. You are trying to carve out an incredibly natural and widespread assumption that two editions of the same system are generally similar over autistic nitpicking of edge-case rules and strongly-held opinions about how they FEEL over fucking formatting choices.>ACKS does this. AD&D 2E does not.Do tell how ACKS' incredibly autistic coverage-maximizing rabbit-hole with a hard paradigm shift in basic level structures to embed a rather significant overhaul of Domain play into basic progression aligns with AD&D 1e's rather fast and loose handling of rather a lot of matters and practically optional consideration of Domain play (and over in the Basic line, Companion is out of timeframe) better than AD&D 2e's large structural overlaps rendering large swaths of content directly inter-operable.>>98247108>I'm glad we're descriptivists so sping gaetngfis nuclear ham sandwisch is ascending AC.How many places can you find using "sping gaetngfis nuclear ham sandwisch" for ascending AC? Because the commonality of use does in fact have to be established.>>98247142>LMAO you looked up "populem" and copy-pasted it without realising that it's a verb in PORTUGUESE, not Latin, you fucking ignoramus.Says one who apparently lacks the patience to FINISH READING A FUCKING POST before replying.>You're at least expected to be able to spell the terms that you use. It's not "argumentum ad populem", you fucking illiterate subhuman.Again, that is another anon's typo. If you cannot parse this reply chain into understanding the shift in posters, you are not equipped for discussion on an image board.
>>98247128It has been growing, WoW was a big one. I recall when Pathfinder made them horrid things, and fans were like "so cute! Look at em murdering children!"
>>98247142>"Argumentum ad populem" is not a Latin saying, idiot. It's something you've made up. It doesn't exist.Not that anon, but I hope this helps. He clearly just spelled the last word incorrectly. Understandable, considering Latin is a dead language.Now, can we please get the fuck back on topic, you fucking waterhead.
>>98247210ignore the off topic trolls please.
>>98247196To be fair, Pathfinder goblins are pretty fucking adorable.They're goddamn toyetic.Especially compared to D&D goblins. Every single D&D goblin depiction has been hideous.
>>98247185>As mentioned, this is because the instance of the word searched for was subject to a typo, which was repeated again in yet another quoted line. See for yourself:>https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/populemThat's Portugues, you fucking retard. You think "Argumentum ad populem" is a Portuguese expression used in English?And it's a verb, how the fuck is a Third-person plural present subjunctive inflection go with "argumentum ad"? It didn't occur to you that neither the language nor the grammar matched the thing that was being discussed?That's only compatible with profound ignorance and stupidity.
This is sad even for a troll known to be retarded and to try to wring out the dumbest arguments out of the littlest things.
>>98247210>He clearly just spelled the last word incorrectly.No shit, he replied to an Anon who used the expression correctly, and he still managed to misspell it. And after it was pointed out to him, he went to check on wiktionary, checked the entry "populem", didn't realise it was for Portuguese and not for Latin, didn't realise that the person, number, tense, and mode for that verb DON'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE in that context, and copy-pasted it to look smart.That's why we're pointing and laughing.>Understandable, considering Latin is a dead language.Risible, considering he was using that expression to make himself look smart, and started pontificating about "actual linguistics" in the same post.>>98246917
>>98247185Its commonly estucuncherated in the cromulant unbsighfpins.
>>98247218They are great really. They did a great job of padding them out. They were the big hot of the first PF Adventure path. They did have plushies!
>>98247185>Which is not functional with general use because there are no barriers to entry to enforce it with.LMAO stop it with the word salad, fishfag. You've already shown you're too stupid to have a discussion on serious matters, give up.>another anon's typoSure, fishfag.
>>98247185>coverage-maximizing rabbit-hole with a hard paradigm shift in basic level structures to embed a rather significant overhaul of Domain play into basic progressionWho the fuck talks like that? Stop trying to sound smart, you're unbearable, you fucking midwit.
>>98247251>They did have plushies!Ah, thank you for continuing this very organic and totally OSR discussion, that at some point later in the thread you'll claim was $100% authentic and only ruined by the "trolls".
>>98247282Pathfinder and WoW is totally osr though.
>>98247226>That's Portugues, you fucking retard.Yes, I said this myself in >>98247094, the context of which should have immediately clued you in that I am not whoever made the minor spelling error you are insisting is some grand demonstration of idiocy instead of just a slight typo. Most people with functional literacy do not even notice such things without conscious effort to do so, because expedient reading rests on much looser matching of patterns than exact spelling. Am I going to have to get out the intentional mutilations rubbing that in?You think "Argumentum ad populem" is a Portuguese expression used in English?No, I am simply annoyed at the persistent misattribution of posts tagged in by your retarded ass's quadruple-posting NOT responding to me despite the claim otherwise who interpreted the initial questioning of what the word means as yet another denigration of descriptive definitions according to common use because I do not anticipate autistic meltdowns about a fucking typo.>And it's a verb, how the fuck is a Third-person plural present subjunctive inflection go with "argumentum ad"? It didn't occur to you that neither the language nor the grammar matched the thing that was being discussed?I repeat:>and a Chadian cuckoldry forum is not the place for technical rigor to begin with.>That's only compatible with profound ignorance and stupidity.Or quarter-assed interaction because I utterly fucking despise the basic premise of the /osrg/ terminology capture and thus do not give you the respect to bother with double-checking all the details are exactly right.>It didn't occur to you that neither the language nor the grammar matched the thing that was being discussed?Per above, I only noticed the Wikitionary entry was Portuguese instead of Latin on the third check of it.>>98247248>And after it was pointed out to him, he went to check on wiktionary>>98247262>Sure, fishfag....Again, the assumption of samefaggotry.
>>98247274NTA, but I followed what he said because he's talking something fairly basic for people who understand games. Have you considered sitting down and shutting up and possibly finally learning something? It would do you and everyone a world of good.
oh lol billy's drunk.
>>98247297Can you stop arguing with him? He knows he's wrong, he's just trying to flood the thread, like always.
>>98247274>Who the fuck talks like that?Somebody who once read dictionaries to pass the time and got started on forum discussion rabbit-holes at about 13. It has done very silly things to my vocabulary.
>>98247297>Most people with functional literacyWhich you are not, or you would have noticed the apparent contradiction of it being a supposedly third person plural present subjunctive of a verb. And if you don't know what that means, I'm sorry, but you DON'T have functional literacy, since English has that specific combination of person, number, tense, and mood.>I only noticed the Wikitionary entry was Portuguese instead of Latin on the third check of it.But you didn't realise that that specific combination of person, number, tense, and mood doesn't make any sense even as you COPIED it into your post. Which makes you functionally illiterate and stupid.
>>98247318>He knows he's wrongWhat, you think "argumentum ad populem" is the correct way to spell it, and a present subjunctive verb in the third plural could possibly go in that expression?Because I know I'm perfectly right and y'all are a bunch of ignoramuses, son.
>>98247321None of that justifies talking like a pompous ass. Particularly when you've amply demonstrated that your command of linguistics and grammar is abysmal.
>>98247323>Which you are not, or you would have noticed the apparent contradiction of it being a supposedly third person plural present subjunctive of a verb.Immediate intuition of the detailed grammar terminology is not "functional literacy". People with actual degrees in this shit are prone to needing to sit down at this level of cross-referencing to be sure about random online conversations, because informal writing very rarely fits the technical standards such educations build intuitions for. Hence why so many stuck-up academics are so annoyed about having to "re-"educate collage students, because the vast majority of use for the vast majority of the population that defines "functional" literacy is met perfectly fine without any intuitive grasp of all this.>And if you don't know what that means, I'm sorry, but you DON'T have functional literacy, since English has that specific combination of person, number, tense, and mood.Sit down and chart out how many steps of analysis are required to arrive at error, then think about how often that many steps are needed to understand what one is reading. Grammar terminology as a whole is not actually necessary for functional literacy, as well demonstrated by the CENTURIES long gaps of its presence from some literary traditions.>>98247342...Says the one pounding grammar terminology in the first place.
