I'm perfectly fine with "OSR" meaning compatible with classic (pre-1e) D&D and retroclones derived as such for compatibility.

I'm FAR more interested in a brand for the school of thought and design around Old School aesthetics. Not particularly interested in retrocloning for specific systems per se. But rather something that adheres to design conceits that do the following:

1) pull DNA from OSR design aesthetics (systems must have stats, genre service where necessary, must not be narrative driven by design, etc.)
2) sandbox design of both adventure and settings
3) GM advocacy for teaching GM's how to run sandbox-style from small scale to large scale.

Obviously there are a lot of caveats to these, but the goal is to ignite the remnants and fallout from the inevitable 6e gates slamming shut in their virtual walled garden, to create that fertile environment that existed in the early 80's where anything was possible. I completely agree with Pundit - these things can coexist with the OSR, and *should*.

They are not competitors in the sense of marketing, as our individual collections of RPG's can attest. Rather they're partners of a specific design school of thought with different expressions of mechanics towards the same end. I know there is a synthesis of these ideas, because we did it back in the day. Hell, half of our house rules for D&D came from other game-systems, but we played D&D which everyone here would recognize. And that's why the OSR is important to me, I *recognize* the DNA of what we claim we want to do, even outside of the D&D paradigm.

Perhaps "OSG" should be a topic for another thread. Let me think on this a bit.

Quote from: Brad on May 29, 2024, 09:14:08 AMIt's absolutely the vibe. We're all on the same team here (for the most part), so quibbling about this sort of crap just allows storygamer retards to control D&D and subvert RPGs into garbage. Hence, my original statement that I think this is all stupid.

From the outside, yeah it feels stupid. From the inside (i.e. people that want to publish or create content etc) I totally get why the tribalism is real. My goal, and I believe the spirit of the OSR (in whatever form) is to capture the "essence" of what made gaming great in the first place.

I'm not putting my flag down on the system as the sole anchor-point, saying that as someone that lived and played through that era. It was my introduction to the hobby circa 1978. For me, it's a bit early. It's not to say that the DNA for the (over)complexity of what would come later wasn't there - it simply wasn't developed.

One argument from the OSR is that the complexity *should never* have been introduced in the first place. I can see that perspective, but I chalk it up to the learning process, and I also believe it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There were *insanely* good systems that fall directly into OSR design aesthetic that co-existed with early D&D. First and foremost is Talislanta. Fantastically good and simple system that has barely changed AND has higher scalability, as easy to learn, and is more modular than even BX.

But of course there are dozens of games that overdid it from that era. The goal I'm talking about is threading that needle.

Case in point - even the new Talislanta 6e game has gone back to its 2e roots. But it's still 99% compatible with its other editions. This is exactly why I get Pundit's strident view of what he wants the OSR to be.

I'm looking to extract those principles outside of just the ruleset into a larger design philosophy for new and veteran GM's to design for - for both personal and published material.

I own very few games that describe themselves as OSR. I enjoyed early D&D when I played it decades ago, but that wasn't because I enjoyed those rules. For the most part, when I pick up a D&D-based OSR product, it's to mine for ideas I can put into a system I prefer. The only OSR game that I recall playing using it's own rule system has been Against the Darkmaster (DTRPG calls it "d100 / d100 Lite, Old-School Revival (OSR)"), which Pundit will say shouldn't be considered OSR as it's based on MERP.

I always considered anything OSR is using a ruleset and game mechanics that is pre-3e D&D.

But that's just me.

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 29, 2024, 10:53:13 AMI own very few games that describe themselves as OSR. I enjoyed early D&D when I played it decades ago, but that wasn't because I enjoyed those rules. For the most part, when I pick up a D&D-based OSR product, it's to mine for ideas I can put into a system I prefer. The only OSR game that I recall playing using it's own rule system has been Against the Darkmaster (DTRPG calls it "d100 / d100 Lite, Old-School Revival (OSR)"), which Pundit will say shouldn't be considered OSR as it's based on MERP.

So, here we can see the problem: DTRPG has several Rolemaster books.

They are listed under "HARP/Rolemaster", not "d100 / d100 Lite, Old-School Revival (OSR)".

But they are probably compatible - maybe I could use "Arms Law" of a Rolemaster adventure with Darkmaster.

What does the OSR label says about "Against the Darkmaster"? Next to nothing, IMO.

EDIT: one thing to add is that D&D changed more than some other systems. We don't need a Runequest "clone" or "Renaissance" because current Runequest is roughly compatible with the original in a way 5e is not compatible with AD&D.

Quote from: blackstone on May 28, 2024, 03:22:07 PM

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2024, 05:23:49 PM

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

One could argue the OSR movement began with Hackmaster 4E back in 2001. Heck, it even says "old school gaming" right there on the back of the HM 4e PHB. You can't get more blatant than that.

Greetings!

Hey there, Blackstone! Oh yeah! HACKMASTER is indeed an ancestor for the OSR. Hackmaster was doing OLD SCHOOL when everyone else was focused on other things, for sure!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on May 29, 2024, 02:53:49 PM

Quote from: blackstone on May 28, 2024, 03:22:07 PM

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2024, 05:23:49 PM

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

One could argue the OSR movement began with Hackmaster 4E back in 2001. Heck, it even says "old school gaming" right there on the back of the HM 4e PHB. You can't get more blatant than that.

Greetings!

Hey there, Blackstone! Oh yeah! HACKMASTER is indeed an ancestor for the OSR. Hackmaster was doing OLD SCHOOL when everyone else was focused on other things, for sure!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Still playing HM 4e today. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 29, 2024, 11:51:16 AMEDIT: one thing to add is that D&D changed more than some other systems. We don't need a Runequest "clone" or "Renaissance" because current Runequest is roughly compatible with the original in a way 5e is not compatible with AD&D.

That's right! But this is why I think the OSR is MORE important as a marketing tool. For it to mean something, it has to stand with specificity for something or it means nothing. That's why I *want* the OSR people hashing this out. Because I'm looking at the bigger picture and I want GOOD GAMING. Even though I don't run OSR games, I own all the original source material and a lot of the modern material. I'm particularly fond of ACKS and a couple of Pundits things, not because I plan on using them as intended, but because they're superb inspirations for other things I want to create outside of B/X style gaming. This is the greater Renaissance idea.

Palladium Fantasy exists, Talislanta exists, Rolemaster exists *because* of D&D - and the entire pantheon of classic games we all know likewise spawned from this cell. The primary difference here is WE are the inheritors of this greatness. WE know they do not go away, your example is proof of that. Runequest still exists, and it is perfectly playable as it is. Same with whatever edition of D&D you like to roll with.

What I'm extracting here from the OSR is the *need* to recapitulate what came after into the now. As a consumer it only requires you dive in and play whatever floats your boat. As a creator - well it means we need to show that we actually learned some lessons, and have synthesized something worthy of our forebears that you as a consumer will chomp at the bit to purchase. Because we're coming from a design philosophy that cleaves directly from the spirit, if not the system of B/X which birthed it all. And that has to be done with great intent. We're not trashing what came before, we're distilling it with the full understanding that it's not only B/X we're pulling from, but everything else that sprang from B/X forward until the mindrot set in. We should, ideally know now what not to do, and we'll know, because if you don't buy it, you'll be telling us.

I am in agreement with Pundit - there is nothing wrong with these ideas being of the same root, different, but parallel in spirit. His definition of the OSR is clear to me. Allow me to use the metaphor - it sits solidly at the root. But I think the greatest era of the gaming is slightly later, I say that's the flower. But it's the same plant.

With WotC walling itself off. This is our time.

Quote from: tenbones on May 29, 2024, 03:09:21 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 29, 2024, 11:51:16 AMEDIT: one thing to add is that D&D changed more than some other systems. We don't need a Runequest "clone" or "Renaissance" because current Runequest is roughly compatible with the original in a way 5e is not compatible with AD&D.

That's right! But this is why I think the OSR is MORE important as a marketing tool. For it to mean something, it has to stand with specificity for something or it means nothing. That's why I *want* the OSR people hashing this out. Because I'm looking at the bigger picture and I want GOOD GAMING. Even though I don't run OSR games, I own all the original source material and a lot of the modern material. I'm particularly fond of ACKS and a couple of Pundits things, not because I plan on using them as intended, but because they're superb inspirations for other things I want to create outside of B/X style gaming. This is the greater Renaissance idea.

Palladium Fantasy exists, Talislanta exists, Rolemaster exists *because* of D&D - and the entire pantheon of classic games we all know likewise spawned from this cell. The primary difference here is WE are the inheritors of this greatness. WE know they do not go away, your example is proof of that. Runequest still exists, and it is perfectly playable as it is. Same with whatever edition of D&D you like to roll with.

What I'm extracting here from the OSR is the *need* to recapitulate what came after into the now. As a consumer it only requires you dive in and play whatever floats your boat. As a creator - well it means we need to show that we actually learned some lessons, and have synthesized something worthy of our forebears that you as a consumer will chomp at the bit to purchase. Because we're coming from a design philosophy that cleaves directly from the spirit, if not the system of B/X which birthed it all. And that has to be done with great intent. We're not trashing what came before, we're distilling it with the full understanding that it's not only B/X we're pulling from, but everything else that sprang from B/X forward until the mindrot set in. We should, ideally know now what not to do, and we'll know, because if you don't buy it, you'll be telling us.

I am in agreement with Pundit - there is nothing wrong with these ideas being of the same root, different, but parallel in spirit. His definition of the OSR is clear to me. Allow me to use the metaphor - it sits solidly at the root. But I think the greatest era of the gaming is slightly later, I say that's the flower. But it's the same plant.

With WotC walling itself off. This is our time.

Hear, hear!  The bigger that WotC's D&D gets, the blander it must get to appeal to "everyone."  As D&D becomes the tasteless gruel of roleplaying games, the spirit of the past combined with the creativity of the present will lead to the great RPGs of the future.  I truly believe that D&D's rise has also given a huge opportunity for the OSR, because the spirit of the OSR is just better...

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 29, 2024, 11:51:16 AMWhat does the OSR label says about "Against the Darkmaster"? Next to nothing, IMO.

I didn't buy it because it is listed as OSR. That never even factored into it for me. My friend that was running the game also didn't buy it because it was listed as OSR. He bought it hoping it would get me and a few others to try an all-in-one-book Rolemaster-ish ruleset. It did. I liked it well enough, better than most of the heavier Rolemaster games I've walked away from (but I do have a fondness for HARP).

I notice many posters have a "pure" concept of rule sets. This is not my remembrance of the the time period, rules used, and campaigns we played. Our games were mish mashes of rules from AD&D (we also raided earlier editions for rules that we liked), Arduin, C&S, any interesting articles from several different gaming magazines, ICE with Arms Law/Spell Law/Claw Law, and various gaming supplements that my Alzheimerish mind fails to recollect at the moment.

I like renaissance because I like the creativity in the movement. I really like BX and derivative rule sets, but I'm not comfortable limiting my old school self to that narrow confinement.

I would encourage author's of rule sets to be more forth coming of design influences, compatibility, and divergences in their advertisements, blogs, and introductions. As an example, Rob Conley does an excellent job making sure you know on all of his material that they are designed from S&W.

Last thought, just do it. Make what you like and want. It won't get done if sit on your ass.

Quote from: swzl on May 30, 2024, 07:31:35 AMI notice many posters have a "pure" concept of rule sets. This is not my remembrance of the the time period, rules used, and campaigns we played. Our games were mish mashes of rules from AD&D (we also raided earlier editions for rules that we liked), Arduin, C&S, any interesting articles from several different gaming magazines, ICE with Arms Law/Spell Law/Claw Law, and various gaming supplements that my Alzheimerish mind fails to recollect at the moment.

You should read my actual post. I literally said exactly this. But the difference we're proposing now is synthesizing the design school that emerged from that era so we can re-examine and have a new era that leverages those systems into new things. OSR is doing just that with B/X. The Renaissance is when we get off our collective asses and do it with other systems.

As an aside - I'm consulting on the Heroic RPG which is a continuation of the MSH game. And it has the "blessing" of Jeff Grubb and Steve Winter, which is a proto-example of this. It's in the vein of the OSR, but not OSR. I think we can push this further.

Quote from: swzl on May 30, 2024, 07:31:35 AMI like renaissance because I like the creativity in the movement. I really like BX and derivative rule sets, but I'm not comfortable limiting my old school self to that narrow confinement.

I would encourage author's of rule sets to be more forth coming of design influences, compatibility, and divergences in their advertisements, blogs, and introductions. As an example, Rob Conley does an excellent job making sure you know on all of his material that they are designed from S&W.

Last thought, just do it. Make what you like and want. It won't get done if sit on your ass.

Yes.

Quote from: swzl on May 30, 2024, 07:31:35 AMI would encourage author's of rule sets to be more forth coming of design influences, compatibility, and divergences in their advertisements, blogs, and introductions. As an example, Rob Conley does an excellent job making sure you know on all of his material that they are designed from S&W.

Appreciate the compliment.

Aside from giving proper credit when due, I think it helps to be explicit about one's creative choices. It been my observation that most kitbash the rules they use for their campaign. Sure they start with a single system but afterwards add in whatever they think is cool and/or fun to have in the campaign.

So as an author why not make it easy to kitbash? My Majestic Fantasy Rules work as is but I know portions can work with other ruleset based on the classic editions. Largely because much of my stuff is an adaptation of Finch's Swords & Wizardry.

Quote from: tenbones on May 29, 2024, 03:09:21 PMBecause we're coming from a design philosophy that cleaves directly from the spirit, if not the system of B/X which birthed it all. And that has to be done with great intent.

What does it mean, in concrete terms, when you say that a system cleaves to the spirit of B/X or that it has old-school DNA?  You do some criteria but they are extremely broad.  Almost anything that is not explicitly a story game could fall under that category.  Vampire:the Masquerade and Requiem could arguably fall under that category.  It has stats.  There are no explicit narrative mechanics despite pretensions to being a storygame.  The default campaign style is a city sized sandbox.  Is such a broad category meaningful or useful?     

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 30, 2024, 06:15:03 PMWhat does it mean, in concrete terms, when you say that a system cleaves to the spirit of B/X or that it has old-school DNA?  You do some criteria but they are extremely broad.  Almost anything that is not explicitly a story game could fall under that category.  Vampire:the Masquerade and Requiem could arguably fall under that category.  It has stats.  There are no explicit narrative mechanics despite pretensions to being a storygame.  The default campaign style is a city sized sandbox.  Is such a broad category meaningful or useful?     

When did anything creative ever work by checking off a list of bullet points?

Why two editions of Vampire wouldn't be considered OSR?

• They both use systems that are very different from D&D. They are different in terms of the design of the system and the level and type of detail the system goes into.
• Because they both focus on depicting vampires in modern times, mostly in a modern urban environment.
• And while Vampire is noted for their sandbox environments, they put the bulk of their focus on the dynamics of conflicts between factions and the interpersonal relationships of PCs and NPCs.

Even if we are talking about Vampire the Dark Ages and Constantinople by Night, many thematic and mechanical differences make the result very different from D&D. Moreso, even when they are similar, there are major differences in emphasis.

If you want this reduced to a bullet list, it will not work. What is classic D&Dish is a judgment call. Some would say what I did for Blackmarsh and the Majestic Fantasy RPG is not very classic D&Dish, while most seem to feel that my efforts are squarely in the category of classic D&Dish.

I emphasize conflicts between factions and the interpersonal relationships between PCs and NPCs. They are set in the context of a world of D&D-style dungeons and adventures. In short, these elements are "in addition to" not "in lieu of". The same applies to the mechanics I added to my Majestic Fantasy RPG.