Grampa's not even ranting about anything *about* OSR games, he's literally just upset that they're not D&D.
I mean literally.
>So much garbage has been lumped under the umbrella definition of "OSR" that I've lost track. Games that inexplicably seem to draw in gore porn, regular porn, put there just for shock value (anything James Raggi does, for example, or the execrable "Carcosa" by Geoffery Mckinney), or games that are story-games in drag, or are inspired by 4e and 3e rules systems just with "Old School style x" somewhere in the description...they're not. I'm sorry, they're not.
>When we're talking about Dungeons & Dragons, do you know what is old-school? Dungeons & Dragons. AD&D, Original D&D, the various flavors of Basic D&D. Even 2nd Edition AD&D. Those are. Them. They Are It.
> So let me be one hundred percent, entirely crystal clear on the subject so there's no mistaking my point of view: You are either playing D&D, old-school, or you're not.
He doesn't actually draw up any coherent argument against the "OSR" in general other that it's just not Dungeons & Dragons. He kind of flirts with parts of arguments, calling some games "story-games in drag" and bizarrely calling out LotFP for shocking content--but nothing else--which I guess is enough to disqualify it in his book anyway.
The other article is just a dude shit talking on Zak Smith. Smith's an asshole, so whatever, but that article's not really saying much about OSR other than "Zak Smith isn't it, and also fuck that guy."
Interestingly, he also mentions Carcosa, which was explicitely name-dropped in the other article as *not* OSR, as one of the O.G. OSR games.
Nobody fucking knows what they're talking about. There's no "Old Guard". There's no "real" OSR. Creating cliques within an umbrella as niche as OSR is wankery. Some OSR games are good, some are bad, just like any other subgenre of tabletop RPGs.