Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AMPeople can't even agree on what the "R" means. Pundit is now trying to claim it as two separate types, but there's way more than just Revival and Renaissance; I've heard everything from Rules to Revolution also used as the R.

  I still think "Ruckus" is the most accurate descriptor I've ever heard applied.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on May 25, 2024, 02:01:04 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AMPeople can't even agree on what the "R" means. Pundit is now trying to claim it as two separate types, but there's way more than just Revival and Renaissance; I've heard everything from Rules to Revolution also used as the R.

I still think "Ruckus" is the most accurate descriptor I've ever heard applied.

You're NOT wrong.

I largely think of it as a solution in search of a problem; an attempt to create a marketing niche for something better served by more strict comparability notices. "Compatible with B/X" or "works with Traveler" or "Compatible with the first advanced edition of the world's most popular RPG" are all more useful than the term OSR has ever been.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 24, 2024, 07:42:23 PMI partially agree and disagree with the video, I'm most certainly in agreement that OSR as a design school strengths laid in  it's limitations.

Limitations tend to place selection bias on creativity, the creators worst enemy is a tabula rasa, the blank sheet comes with it choice paralysis, picking OD&D, B/X or AD&D as a north star is pretty ingenious.

At the same time I think we should be wary of being too married to that notion, hence we get this psudo-Gyaxian cult of trying to find what Ur-D&D is, like you mentioned dice pools, I don't see why you couldn't make a dice-pool version of B/X with skills?

same character attribute and class-niche protection  but instead of rolling a d20 for attacking and skills you roll d6s, maybe I'm stupid but I can't discern a clear reason why a certain mechanic does or does not exclude an OSR game? there is no hard line you can draw in the sand that doesn't either includes games that clearly don't belong or exclude games that do. (except maybe point buy)

Hence I'm not interested in any attempt at which to define the OSR on mechanical terms cause that's totally fruitless, the OSR has a spirit about it, not a law.

The reason why the core mechanics are so important is compatibility. Compatibility is a central feature of the OSR's success; where you can take any two OSR books, by different authors, even in different genres, and you can with the absolute minimum of effort plug stuff from one book into the other totally different book.

If people get to start claiming their D6 dicepool game is OSR, that compatibility is lost.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on May 25, 2024, 02:05:48 AMI've always been partial towards the Old School Renaissance interpretation, though that's likely because I got here pretty late.

My categorization of it always hinged around building off the existing D&D framework in a way you can create new games, but with a well designed chassis at base already, and so that your games are still broadly compatible with what a lot of other people are doing already, which is a win for everybody.

I'm always interested in seeing where people consider the lines are, like how Pundit said that point buy is flatly incompatible with OSR. While I definetly prefer rolling for stats, and think that that's more in line with OSR sensibilites, I think that a game that uses point buy could still be compatible with other OSR games and might still be therefore considered OSR itself. Why the hard line against pointbuy?

Because point-buy leads to extreme min-maxing and "charbuild optimization", which turns out to be contrary to compatibiilty. Having randomly-rolled ability scores, and not being able to "purchase" skills or feat to taste, means that compatibility is maintained.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 25, 2024, 10:31:21 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 25, 2024, 09:59:54 AMI can't speak for the OP but I don't think point buy (or skills, or feats, or combat maneuvers) is in any way incompatible to the OSR.

When I say "compatibility with TSR" I do not mean theoretically, I'm actually running classic TSR modules and I don't want to do much conversion during the game. I also use old school monster manuals and encounter tables. This all despite of not running any TSR game (I use my own retroclone, Dark Fantasy Basic).

Of course, there are few "hard lines", since TSR contains many variations: roll high, roll low, 1d20, 2d6, 1d100, additional abilities (comeliness), race as class or separated, sci-fi aspects and entire games, NWP, WP, etc.

But the more conversion you need the farther you are.

Here is a curious example from Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/1d06tya/can_anyone_weigh_in_on_whether_our_game_is_osr_or/

Old school is comprised of more than just older TSR games. A tweaked clone of Traveler qualifies as old school IMHO.

Old School, definitely. OSR, no. OSR is based on D&D. As I pointed out, Traveller has its own third-party old-school movement these days, and that's great. But it is its own separate thing.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 25, 2024, 10:31:21 AMOld school is comprised of more than just older TSR games. A tweaked clone of Traveler qualifies as old school IMHO.

And thus the truth of it all; the OSR is a nearly useless marketing term. It means everything and nothing depending on who you ask. For some it means TSR only, others include Traveler and other games from the 70s and sometimes the early 80s. DriveThruRPG lists Zwiehander as OSR.

Drivethru does that because it allows publishers to decide what categories it uses, and the grifter creator of that game wanted to claim it was in the OSR category because OSR products sell better. That's exactly an example of why there has to be strict definitions of what is OSR.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 02:25:23 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on May 25, 2024, 02:01:04 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AMPeople can't even agree on what the "R" means. Pundit is now trying to claim it as two separate types, but there's way more than just Revival and Renaissance; I've heard everything from Rules to Revolution also used as the R.

I still think "Ruckus" is the most accurate descriptor I've ever heard applied.

You're NOT wrong.

I largely think of it as a solution in search of a problem; an attempt to create a marketing niche for something better served by more strict comparability notices. "Compatible with B/X" or "works with Traveler" or "Compatible with the first advanced edition of the world's most popular RPG" are all more useful than the term OSR has ever been.

Spoken like someone who is angry that 2nd and 3rd wave OSR products exist and are hugely successful.

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:53:18 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 02:25:23 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on May 25, 2024, 02:01:04 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AMPeople can't even agree on what the "R" means. Pundit is now trying to claim it as two separate types, but there's way more than just Revival and Renaissance; I've heard everything from Rules to Revolution also used as the R.

I still think "Ruckus" is the most accurate descriptor I've ever heard applied.

You're NOT wrong.

I largely think of it as a solution in search of a problem; an attempt to create a marketing niche for something better served by more strict comparability notices. "Compatible with B/X" or "works with Traveler" or "Compatible with the first advanced edition of the world's most popular RPG" are all more useful than the term OSR has ever been.

Spoken like someone who is angry that 2nd and 3rd wave OSR products exist and are hugely successful.

Uh huh. You go right on believing what your ego needs to; that your products are relevant enough for me to give the slightest thought to.

You can't hate something you don't even think about most days and when you do it's only because someone else brought it up and is pretending they're some defining voice of a movement instead of someone who flexes the definition of OSR every bit as much to suit their needs.

Ex. Invisible College is marketed as an OSR-ruleset, but is a modern world setting with significant rules differences from D&D... you can't just plug-and-play it into a B/X or AD&D campaign. It's not compatible out of the box. But you market it as OSR anyway.

So if even the guy who wants the term to be taken seriously doesn't treat the term seriously, why should anyone else?

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 26, 2024, 08:44:26 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:53:18 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 02:25:23 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on May 25, 2024, 02:01:04 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AMPeople can't even agree on what the "R" means. Pundit is now trying to claim it as two separate types, but there's way more than just Revival and Renaissance; I've heard everything from Rules to Revolution also used as the R.

I still think "Ruckus" is the most accurate descriptor I've ever heard applied.

You're NOT wrong.

I largely think of it as a solution in search of a problem; an attempt to create a marketing niche for something better served by more strict comparability notices. "Compatible with B/X" or "works with Traveler" or "Compatible with the first advanced edition of the world's most popular RPG" are all more useful than the term OSR has ever been.

Spoken like someone who is angry that 2nd and 3rd wave OSR products exist and are hugely successful.

Uh huh. You go right on believing what your ego needs to; that your products are relevant enough for me to give the slightest thought to.

You can't hate something you don't even think about most days and when you do it's only because someone else brought it up and is pretending they're some defining voice of a movement instead of someone who flexes the definition of OSR every bit as much to suit their needs.

Ex. Invisible College is marketed as an OSR-ruleset, but is a modern world setting with significant rules differences from D&D... you can't just plug-and-play it into a B/X or AD&D campaign. It's not compatible out of the box. But you market it as OSR anyway.

So if even the guy who wants the term to be taken seriously doesn't treat the term seriously, why should anyone else?

Wait, what?!  You mean you like and enjoy early D&D and the adjacent games which borrow those mechanics?  You are a proponent of OD&D, BECMI, and AD&D and its mechanics?  Because I got the impression that you hated the earlier editions and never run or play them...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 26, 2024, 10:58:45 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 26, 2024, 08:44:26 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:53:18 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 02:25:23 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on May 25, 2024, 02:01:04 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AMPeople can't even agree on what the "R" means. Pundit is now trying to claim it as two separate types, but there's way more than just Revival and Renaissance; I've heard everything from Rules to Revolution also used as the R.

I still think "Ruckus" is the most accurate descriptor I've ever heard applied.

You're NOT wrong.

I largely think of it as a solution in search of a problem; an attempt to create a marketing niche for something better served by more strict comparability notices. "Compatible with B/X" or "works with Traveler" or "Compatible with the first advanced edition of the world's most popular RPG" are all more useful than the term OSR has ever been.

Spoken like someone who is angry that 2nd and 3rd wave OSR products exist and are hugely successful.

Uh huh. You go right on believing what your ego needs to; that your products are relevant enough for me to give the slightest thought to.

You can't hate something you don't even think about most days and when you do it's only because someone else brought it up and is pretending they're some defining voice of a movement instead of someone who flexes the definition of OSR every bit as much to suit their needs.

Ex. Invisible College is marketed as an OSR-ruleset, but is a modern world setting with significant rules differences from D&D... you can't just plug-and-play it into a B/X or AD&D campaign. It's not compatible out of the box. But you market it as OSR anyway.

So if even the guy who wants the term to be taken seriously doesn't treat the term seriously, why should anyone else?

Wait, what?!  You mean you like and enjoy early D&D and the adjacent games which borrow those mechanics?  You are a proponent of OD&D, BECMI, and AD&D and its mechanics?  Because I got the impression that you hated the earlier editions and never run or play them...

I don't play them. I don't run them. I don't see any offerings for them on the boards at my FLGS or their associated website.

I don't think about the OSR at all on my own. It only enters my brain when someone else brings it up and when they do I mostly just laugh to myself because it's invariably someone trying to make OneTrueWayist claims about a term practically defined by having no one with enough authority to define it.

I don't hate or love the OSR in the same way I don't hate or love what's living in the Deep Ocean. I do broadly get annoyed by OneTrueWayism, particularly when it insists on throwing away people who might agree with all of the problems in the modern RPG scene (that the Woke are intent on dividing and conquering and driving those who don't abide their insanity out entirely), but because they don't like random-stat generation or similar OSR-isms get decried as Woke puppets who want to destroy the hobby.

If you don't play what they say is the OSR way you're a garbage person who shouldn't even be in the hobby.

Never mind that their OneTrueWayist bullshit looks nothing like how I saw D&D actually played back in the day by the 12-15 year olds who actually played it. Random rolls only? Please. Outside of the retard who practically drove me from the hobby the norm in my area was arrange 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13 in whatever order you wanted and get max hit points and gold. If you got spells just put up to your limit for the level into your spellbook. Done.

That's because it was fun and you didn't have to waste any time making a new PC or have to worry about fudged dice or rolling multiple sets until you got something you wanted; put your six numbers in the order you wanted, pick a race/class (AD&D1e was the norm in these parts when I actually played), figure out your class stuff... back in the game.

Anyway, there's a whole chunk of players out there who, at least online, feel pretty homeless because we're not welcome at other places for not being Woke and aren't welcome here because we have no interest in bowing down to the self-proclaimed OSR high priests.

It's not healthy to hate though; hate is poison for the soul; which is why I just don't think of the OSR unless it's brought up here. Then I bring up the ridiculousness of the people who treat it as anything more than a marketing gimmick and get on with my day.

And most of the reason it is ridiculous is, again, OSR OneTrueWayists who lump anyone who doesn't worship their idol as belonging to the same group who are defined by their undying devotion to The Revolution and hatred for all that lives/exists... even as they insist on pushing their own Old School Revolution and hating on and ostracizing the unbelievers.

So there should be a new marketing term - OSG (Old School Game) which comprises all non-d20 based games from that era?

I like that the discussion about WHAT the OSR is continues to happen, because it will finally crystalize, whether it means its "just" a marketing term or, finally, into a mutually understood term that encompasses a specific ruleset. It used to make my teeth itch when people would lump d6, FASERIP, and other old school games into the OSR as if they're trying to protect those systems from "modernity".

But at least now, we're clear: it's d20 based systems using the B/X aesthetic designed to be modally compatible with one another.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 26, 2024, 12:32:33 PMAnyway, there's a whole chunk of players out there who, at least online, feel pretty homeless because we're not welcome at other places for not being Woke and aren't welcome here because we have no interest in bowing down to the self-proclaimed OSR high priests.

  Or as I sometimes put it, our options seem to be to bow down to the Great Dragon of Many Colors and of None worshipped by WotC, Paizo, and other big companies, or to smaller self-proclaimed golden calves in the OSR, BrOSR, etc.

  I also tend to think of "Old School" and "OSR" as a term of art for "roughly D&D-style play based on the game from 1974-1983", and use it in the same way one might refer to certain entities as "the Good People" or "the Fair Folk."

IMHO I think the best thing about the OSR approach is that design constraints (1) lead to real innovation and (2) encourage the developer to spend their time actually doing the thing they can contribute to the hobby, which is their cool setting or campaign or whatever. If you're also inventing your own system (1) why are you doing this, there are a gagillion of time tested systems many of which are available for use and (2) it's a very specific skill.

Quote from: tenbones on May 26, 2024, 12:35:28 PMSo there should be a new marketing term - OSG (Old School Game) which comprises all non-d20 based games from that era?

I like that the discussion about WHAT the OSR is continues to happen, because it will finally crystalize, whether it means its "just" a marketing term or, finally, into a mutually understood term that encompasses a specific ruleset. It used to make my teeth itch when people would lump d6, FASERIP, and other old school games into the OSR as if they're trying to protect those systems from "modernity".

But at least now, we're clear: it's d20 based systems using the B/X aesthetic designed to be modally compatible with one another.

In order for it to be a useful marketing term it has to mean something.

Very rarely a generic term can be used to sell stuff, and even then you usually add the brand of the manufacturer to differentiate:

PC used to mean IBM, then the IBM compatible PC became a thing, then the compatible term was dropped, now you go buy a PC from brand X, but you're likely buying the brand not any PC will suffice.

So, for OSR to be a really useful marketing term it needs to mean something, if anything and everything can fit into the category then the category is useless.

After this many years and with the de-facto monopoly on-line allowing anything and everything into the category I wonder if it's not too late to even try and reclaim it for what it should be.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on May 26, 2024, 12:38:41 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 26, 2024, 12:32:33 PMAnyway, there's a whole chunk of players out there who, at least online, feel pretty homeless because we're not welcome at other places for not being Woke and aren't welcome here because we have no interest in bowing down to the self-proclaimed OSR high priests.

  Or as I sometimes put it, our options seem to be to bow down to the Great Dragon of Many Colors and of None worshipped by WotC, Paizo, and other big companies, or to smaller self-proclaimed golden calves in the OSR, BrOSR, etc.

  I also tend to think of "Old School" and "OSR" as a term of art for "roughly D&D-style play based on the game from 1974-1983", and use it in the same way one might refer to certain entities as "the Good People" or "the Fair Folk."

So, if you're not allowed to call your Charger a Ford you're not welcome in a car forum?

Worst still, there's no rule that would get you banned from here for saying that OpenD6 is OSR, you might get pushback but that's all.