Quote from: RPGPundit on May 27, 2024, 10:59:08 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 01:01:00 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:49:22 AM

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.

Why?

I know you feel obligated to repeat this often, but what benefit is there in isolating the OSR from any other game system that came out during that time? Why does it have to be D&D based only? is this some kind of One True Wayism for you? I ask, because this honestly looks like you are trying to protect some kind of marketing brand recognition you find in the acronym OSR.

In my video I already pointed out that for the OSR to mean anything actually concrete it has to be understood as a design school. That's what the OSR has really been at least since the release of LotFP (while before that it was just a reproduction of old editions and some new modules for those old editions). In order to be a design school, it has to have a framework, and that framework has to be the rules (any other framework, like genre or aesthetics would almost immediately be watered down into meaninglessness).
So you have say "the OSR is a box, within which you can be as creative as you like, but if you break outside the landmarks of that box, it is not OSR". That box is the D&D rules. You could have another box that is The Traveller Rules, or the Fantasy Trip rules, or T&T rules, or whatever. But you can't just say "that box is any old school game" or you do not in fact have a real framework.

It's like you're asking "why can't you say that impressionism is part of neo-classicism"? It's not a question of some kind of judgment, or claiming you can't appreciate both, it's just saying that the rules to create one are different from the rules to create the other.   

OK, so for a game to be OSR to you, it must be a slight variance of the D&D rules. Therefore d20 Traveller, a Traveller variant based upon slight modifications to D&D rules, is OSR. True or false?

Now, I'm bringing this up because one of the hallmarks of the OSR (at least in the beginning) was that the movement championed a DIY approach to gaming, a belief in rulings not rules, and player characters engaging with the setting instead of just pitting their numbers against the setting. None of which demands that the game be based on D&D.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 26, 2024, 02:22:34 PMSo, 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.

  Clarification: I was referring to general trends in overall hobby discussion, not this specific topic or specific site. My apologies for being unspecific.

   As for OSR, I'm fine leaving that for the "Gygaxian D&D family of games", and even 'Old School' for the same, so long as the latter is treated as a term of art and not a literal "how everybody played D&D and all other RPGs before the Dark Times (usually defined as somewhere between Tunnels & Trolls and 2E, with Dragonlance being the most common cutoff)."

There's a few posts in here that make a reasonably postmodernist mistake.  "The colors are on a spectrum; therefore red and blue are the same". 

The existence of an exactly fixed border isn't needed for there to be clear distinctions.  Is some non-D&D game with immense pedigree in the same category as a B/X mostly-clone from 2012?  Nope.  Can you find a bunch of intermediate games to confuse the issue?  Sure.  Does that matter?  Again, no.

Quote from: Venka on May 27, 2024, 12:19:26 PMThere's a few posts in here that make a reasonably postmodernist mistake.  "The colors are on a spectrum; therefore red and blue are the same". 

The existence of an exactly fixed border isn't needed for there to be clear distinctions.  Is some non-D&D game with immense pedigree in the same category as a B/X mostly-clone from 2012?  Nope.  Can you find a bunch of intermediate games to confuse the issue?  Sure.  Does that matter?  Again, no.

This. Reminds me of the rejoinder I've heard against a similar argument in a different sphere. The only reason you can find fuzzy edge cases that challenge the line is because you know there is a line and where it is. if there was no line, there wouldn't be these edge cases to argue about in the first place.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on May 27, 2024, 02:09:15 PM

Quote from: Venka on May 27, 2024, 12:19:26 PMThere's a few posts in here that make a reasonably postmodernist mistake.  "The colors are on a spectrum; therefore red and blue are the same". 

The existence of an exactly fixed border isn't needed for there to be clear distinctions.  Is some non-D&D game with immense pedigree in the same category as a B/X mostly-clone from 2012?  Nope.  Can you find a bunch of intermediate games to confuse the issue?  Sure.  Does that matter?  Again, no.

This. Reminds me of the rejoinder I've heard against a similar argument in a different sphere. The only reason you can find fuzzy edge cases that challenge the line is because you know there is a line and where it is. if there was no line, there wouldn't be these edge cases to argue about in the first place.

Bingo.  As I posted above, no one here seems to have a problem differentiating between board games and TTRPGs, storygames and RPGs, wargames and RPGs, etc.  There are definitely some games that blur those lines.  But everyone still knows there's a line...

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 27, 2024, 10:43:21 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 26, 2024, 06:50:38 PMI'm not much into early D&D anymore, but I prefer the more narrow, useful version of OSR that assumes it is both old school in spirit and compatible mechanically with those games. Narrow definitions are useful to people inside and out.  When I describe my preferred game as old school in spirit but not compatible mechanically (i.e. not OSR but near it in spirit) then that says something fairly clear. 

What that statement would say to me is that you either chose to publish a book that won't call itself OSR and therefore likely sell less, or that you will call it OSR and therefore engage in what is essentially deceptive advertising.

The first one, except that I'm not even sure that I will publish at all.  (Make the game work the way I want locally first.  Then decide.)  I consciously set out to do something driven primarily by what I like, with any compatibility to old school D&D being an entirely secondary priority.  Calling it OSR would not only be deceptive advertising but a deeper deception in design.  It would be contrary to the whole purpose of the thing.

I hang around in threads like this, with strong interest, because "what I like" has a huge overlap in spirit with what OSR games do.  So naturally I have a vested interest in real OSR things being labeled as such, as well as equally clear call outs of games that are "third cousin, twice removed from OSR".  That's what I mean by clarity is also valuable to those who aren't after what an OSR game delivers. 

I knew that it meant that any game I made along those lines would sell less than an OSR game.  I'm not going to try to bastardize definitions to get around that after the fact.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 27, 2024, 04:13:47 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 27, 2024, 10:43:21 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 26, 2024, 06:50:38 PMI'm not much into early D&D anymore, but I prefer the more narrow, useful version of OSR that assumes it is both old school in spirit and compatible mechanically with those games. Narrow definitions are useful to people inside and out.  When I describe my preferred game as old school in spirit but not compatible mechanically (i.e. not OSR but near it in spirit) then that says something fairly clear. 

What that statement would say to me is that you either chose to publish a book that won't call itself OSR and therefore likely sell less, or that you will call it OSR and therefore engage in what is essentially deceptive advertising.

The first one, except that I'm not even sure that I will publish at all.  (Make the game work the way I want locally first.  Then decide.)  I consciously set out to do something driven primarily by what I like, with any compatibility to old school D&D being an entirely secondary priority.  Calling it OSR would not only be deceptive advertising but a deeper deception in design.  It would be contrary to the whole purpose of the thing.

I hang around in threads like this, with strong interest, because "what I like" has a huge overlap in spirit with what OSR games do.  So naturally I have a vested interest in real OSR things being labeled as such, as well as equally clear call outs of games that are "third cousin, twice removed from OSR".  That's what I mean by clarity is also valuable to those who aren't after what an OSR game delivers. 

I knew that it meant that any game I made along those lines would sell less than an OSR game.  I'm not going to try to bastardize definitions to get around that after the fact.

There's ALSO the fact that conflating the label (as TTRPG does) causes more bloat, making it harder to be discovered and might push away buyers since if you're looking for Old School Renaissance not just Old School or viceversa and you get lots of the stuff you're not searching for is tiresome.

The label/category should serve for the potential buyer to discriminate that which doesn't fall within it.

It's like if they placed OpenD6 in the same category as D&D, because they are both TTRPGs after all. "Are you saying that one isn't you bigot?".

Greetings!

I don't understand the deep-seated need some people have in arguing about non-D&D games being part of the OSR. They aren't. The OSR is specifically based upon D&D games. The early people that started the whole "OSR" movement were specifically D&D fans. So, OSR is a movement and design school based upon D&D games.

Just get over it.

Your favourite old non-D&D game may be in fact a game, a RPG, but that does not make it part of the OSR.

This isn't difficult to understand. OSR is for D&D based games. Everything else is just some other kind of game. Roleplaying game, whatever.

Beyond that, if you are a person that doesn't like RPG's, or has a maniacal hatred for D&D, fine. Get over yourself, and go on playing whatever your game is. That's no reason to screech about D&D games, or REEE about your hatred of the OSR.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2024, 04:45:30 PMGreetings!

I don't understand the deep-seated need some people have in arguing about non-D&D games being part of the OSR. They aren't. The OSR is specifically based upon D&D games. The early people that started the whole "OSR" movement were specifically D&D fans. So, OSR is a movement and design school based upon D&D games.

Just get over it.

Your favourite old non-D&D game may be in fact a game, a RPG, but that does not make it part of the OSR.

This isn't difficult to understand. OSR is for D&D based games. Everything else is just some other kind of game. Roleplaying game, whatever.

Beyond that, if you are a person that doesn't like RPG's, or has a maniacal hatred for D&D, fine. Get over yourself, and go on playing whatever your game is. That's no reason to screech about D&D games, or REEE about your hatred of the OSR.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Well, to answer your question, the OSR did not start out as a D&D centric box destined to become an iconic marketing brand like Pundit has decided it is on this forum. Since it is Pundit's forum, that is what it is here but it is not the same everywhere else.

Sorry if my desire to get back to the roots of the OSR acronym sounds like a screech or a REEE to you, maybe the Navy's Younger Son needs to grow a thicker skin?

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 05:05:39 PM

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2024, 04:45:30 PMGreetings!

I don't understand the deep-seated need some people have in arguing about non-D&D games being part of the OSR. They aren't. The OSR is specifically based upon D&D games. The early people that started the whole "OSR" movement were specifically D&D fans. So, OSR is a movement and design school based upon D&D games.

Just get over it.

Your favourite old non-D&D game may be in fact a game, a RPG, but that does not make it part of the OSR.

This isn't difficult to understand. OSR is for D&D based games. Everything else is just some other kind of game. Roleplaying game, whatever.

Beyond that, if you are a person that doesn't like RPG's, or has a maniacal hatred for D&D, fine. Get over yourself, and go on playing whatever your game is. That's no reason to screech about D&D games, or REEE about your hatred of the OSR.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Well, to answer your question, the OSR did not start out as a D&D centric box destined to become an iconic marketing brand like Pundit has decided it is on this forum. Since it is Pundit's forum, that is what it is here but it is not the same everywhere else.

Sorry if my desire to get back to the roots of the OSR acronym sounds like a screech or a REEE to you, maybe the Navy's Younger Son needs to grow a thicker skin?

Greetings!

*Laughing*! Ahh, my friend! Well, as far as I know, the early OSR beginnings were Matt Finch, OSRIC, and I suppose DCC. Even if you also think of Castles & Crusades, that is all D&D based. Before them, noone ever talked about the OSR.

Who was talking about the OSR in the early beginning years that was not D&D based?

I would also put forth that everyone I know of, game design/company wise, for example, when they talk about the OSR, it is with the clear understanding that such a game is D&D based. You know, lots of people beyond Pundit. *Laughing* I get that Pundit can *rub some people the wrong way* *Laughing*

But, Jeff, be that as it may be, the OSR is very much in the public eye as being D&D based games. I didn't make that up, my friend! It just is, you know?

Where else, or who, thinks of the OSR as NOT being based on D&D games, Jeff?

You made me choke on my coffee laughing! Ahh, yes. Time to light up my pipe and make some new coffee.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 05:05:39 PMWell, to answer your question, the OSR did not start out as a D&D centric box destined to become an iconic marketing brand like Pundit has decided it is on this forum. Since it is Pundit's forum, that is what it is here but it is not the same everywhere else.

I actually agree with you on this position. OSR, originally, was NOT about "D&D-esque" RPGs, but instead old school inspired DIY gaming, which means I consider something like Cepheus Engine to be OSR by virtue of it emulating an old school game. HOWEVER, as a MARKETING TOOL, OSR has morphed into set of games with a narrow definition. At this point even stuff like C&C and Whitehack aren't OSR; I would also think White Box is right on the edge.

This is Pundit's forum, and he has books to sell, so the delineation is extremely important to him. For someone like me who prefers old school games, D&D or whatever else, I think this whole discussion is pretty stupid.

QuoteYou are doing a motte and bailey argument here. You're saying that because my games have a single-value Saving Throw roll (with individual bonuses to save vs types of challenges) instead of "Save vs paralysis/poison/wands/dragon breath/spells" that means its the same as someone making a dice pool game where the absolute core mechanics would work NOTHING like D&D does.
If instead of rolling D20s to hit, with modifiers from combat bonus and ability score modifiers you had a variable dice pool that counted successes, you would have to massively revise everything to make some TSR module (or LotFP, ACKS or whatever) fit. Whereas with just about anything from L&D or my other games you would just have to pick whether you wanted my version of the rule or the other version.
It's not in any way the same.

This was such a slap to the face I felt the need to mark and structure a proper argument now.



The accusations that I was using some sort of weak ass debate tactic is something I find jarring, I didn't realize the steaks were that high for this, and all the funnier because you invoke a false equivalence I'll address in a moment.


For one you were playing coy, saving throws are not the only difference your games have, and while most of them are at best nitpicks if that,  since difference is not a marked sin? as far as my understanding the of the OSR is (except maybe the BroSR) you forget to mention all the other subtle mechanics you've shifted from the baseline. the result in something that plays very differently than the typical OSR game such as the ones you dragged into this argument like LOFP and ACKS.

Examples include but are not limited to, 1, lack of gold based XP  incentive structures, 2, randomized level progression, 3. unified saving throws, 4 non-standard resource management, such as lack of spell slots or consideration for wealth.

These things combined add up to a play-style that is radically different and lacking resemblance with traditional OSR games, that's notable because YOUR ARGUMENT is that a d6-dice pool would play different or in your own hyperbolic words "Nothing like" an OSR game, well a typical Mytseria game looks nothing like a Lion & Dragon game even if fairly compatible, you simply are doing different things and are incentivised differently despite superficial stats and mechanics.


A false equivalence You presume I wouldn't note the difference between something being OSR compatible and of the OSR play-style, I never said a d6-dice pooled played like an OSR game in the traditional sense, I merely stated it could be compatible.

If a game is utterly capable of translating and has the same stats of Saving Throw, Hit dice,    six attributes ranging from 3-to-18, class niche protection, XP, and minimal procedures for dungeon and wilderness exploration, but it also jsut happens to use D6s for action resolution why is it suddenly not count or is discernibly different?

It's merely statistically different and your games already have enough invoked changes to qualify for that sin anyway, and besides all dice are just a d100s in disguise.


If I didn't know and respect your work enough I would have  attributed this argument to malice, considering it looks exactly like a real motte and bailey tactic, using mechanical compatibility as the cover while you retreat to limp "play style" argument.



I'd like to not invoke your pride but I must admit mine is a bit sting and I genuinely believe this line of argument was beneath you.

Quote from: Brad on May 27, 2024, 06:30:00 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 05:05:39 PMWell, to answer your question, the OSR did not start out as a D&D centric box destined to become an iconic marketing brand like Pundit has decided it is on this forum. Since it is Pundit's forum, that is what it is here but it is not the same everywhere else.

I actually agree with you on this position. OSR, originally, was NOT about "D&D-esque" RPGs, but instead old school inspired DIY gaming, which means I consider something like Cepheus Engine to be OSR by virtue of it emulating an old school game. HOWEVER, as a MARKETING TOOL, OSR has morphed into set of games with a narrow definition. At this point even stuff like C&C and Whitehack aren't OSR; I would also think White Box is right on the edge.

This is Pundit's forum, and he has books to sell, so the delineation is extremely important to him. For someone like me who prefers old school games, D&D or whatever else, I think this whole discussion is pretty stupid.

You both are wrong, the OSR started as retroclones of the D&D editions you couldn't buy. So much so those were the first retroclones and the logo was designed to mimic TSR's.

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 11:52:46 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 27, 2024, 10:59:08 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 01:01:00 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:49:22 AM

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.

Why?

I know you feel obligated to repeat this often, but what benefit is there in isolating the OSR from any other game system that came out during that time? Why does it have to be D&D based only? is this some kind of One True Wayism for you? I ask, because this honestly looks like you are trying to protect some kind of marketing brand recognition you find in the acronym OSR.

In my video I already pointed out that for the OSR to mean anything actually concrete it has to be understood as a design school. That's what the OSR has really been at least since the release of LotFP (while before that it was just a reproduction of old editions and some new modules for those old editions). In order to be a design school, it has to have a framework, and that framework has to be the rules (any other framework, like genre or aesthetics would almost immediately be watered down into meaninglessness).
So you have say "the OSR is a box, within which you can be as creative as you like, but if you break outside the landmarks of that box, it is not OSR". That box is the D&D rules. You could have another box that is The Traveller Rules, or the Fantasy Trip rules, or T&T rules, or whatever. But you can't just say "that box is any old school game" or you do not in fact have a real framework.

It's like you're asking "why can't you say that impressionism is part of neo-classicism"? It's not a question of some kind of judgment, or claiming you can't appreciate both, it's just saying that the rules to create one are different from the rules to create the other. 

OK, so for a game to be OSR to you, it must be a slight variance of the D&D rules. Therefore d20 Traveller, a Traveller variant based upon slight modifications to D&D rules, is OSR. True or false?

Now, I'm bringing this up because one of the hallmarks of the OSR (at least in the beginning) was that the movement championed a DIY approach to gaming, a belief in rulings not rules, and player characters engaging with the setting instead of just pitting their numbers against the setting. None of which demands that the game be based on D&D.

Well, D20 Trav is based on 3.x, not old school D&D, so technically it would not be old school at all. And yet, on the other hand, it would still be MORE compatible with an OSR product than any other traveller game. You understand?

Quote from: Brad on May 27, 2024, 06:30:00 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 05:05:39 PMWell, to answer your question, the OSR did not start out as a D&D centric box destined to become an iconic marketing brand like Pundit has decided it is on this forum. Since it is Pundit's forum, that is what it is here but it is not the same everywhere else.

I actually agree with you on this position. OSR, originally, was NOT about "D&D-esque" RPGs, but instead old school inspired DIY gaming, which means I consider something like Cepheus Engine to be OSR by virtue of it emulating an old school game. HOWEVER, as a MARKETING TOOL, OSR has morphed into set of games with a narrow definition. At this point even stuff like C&C and Whitehack aren't OSR; I would also think White Box is right on the edge.

This is Pundit's forum, and he has books to sell, so the delineation is extremely important to him. For someone like me who prefers old school games, D&D or whatever else, I think this whole discussion is pretty stupid.

Greetings!

Hey Brad! That is interesting. I didn't know. As I mentioned, everyone I have heard discuss the OSR--out in YouTube land--everyone talks about the OSR being based on D&D games. The only people I have heard claim something different is well, here, with Jeff and now you.

Note to JEFF! Well, then, I apologize, my friend. I am willing to take your word for it, and you, as well, Brad, that OSR early years embraced not only D&D based games, but evidently other games as well.

I hope that my initial post did not come across as angry or demeaning. I meant it to be hyperbolic, and chiding, really.

I am honest though. I don't know anyone--beyond you huys here--that ever talk about the OSR *not* being based primarily on D&D games.

As far as beyond the internet, well, you may consider this to be funny, or incredible, or both, maybe--but away from the internet, with most of my face-to-face friends, no one even knows what the term "OSR" really is, or even cares. They tend towards taking whatever philosophical gaming lore cues from me, as I interpret things. They are gamers, and love playing, but they are not typically up on all the gossip, news, and drama that goes on with the game online. *Laughing* For example, four of my players are girls, and they simply don't know and don't care about so much of this stuff, which when I do explain some things to them, they tend to see it all as being pretty trivial. However, even they know about the OGL debacle with WOTC, and they firmly believe that WOTC is an evil, greedy, and disgusting company. My own explanations more in-depth simply fortified their convictions. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK