To be frank this is a bit of a trick/weird question, because I don't think there is a specific genre or setting that can't fit into an OSR framework, whether or not it is the best option is a different question altogether.

Also to clarify real quick for the pedants among us: when I mean OSR, I'm talking about games based on TSR era D&D, I don't really care if you think something like Traveller should count because that expands the definition to something which isn't useful in a conversation.

The reason I touch on this is because I've finally managed to articulate in my mind why I like and glommed onto the OSR as a school of game design and it comes down to one word extensibility.

Coming from a Linux perspective extensibility is a term used to describe how expandable a system or program is without needing to retool the whole thing from the ground up, and in this respect while I wouldn't call all OSR systems "rules light" as that is somewhat subjective, the thing I've found in common is they are quite extensible, I can add or remove mechanics and the whole system doesn't come apart.

this is often mistaken with compatibility, but really a lot of OSR games have mutually exclusive mechanics, but by the systems extensible nature it's easy to pick one mechanic or the other and have the rest of the operation go smoothly.

Why am I bringing all of this up? to point out the unspoken core strength of the OSR to frame the question, because I have yet to find a genre which I don't think the OSR can do, I can name genres it's weaker in, Superheroes are an example, I've run Light City and while it was fun it certainly didn't capture the genre as well as something like Mutants & Masterminds. But at the same time something like a Daredevil or Punisher style game would work well in an OSR framework, or hell even something like The Shadow.

so even in the genre I think it's weak in, it has strengths in some of the specific sub-genres.

Selling.

Jokes aside, the main issue I have with OSR is that there are so many of them.  The other name that they used to have was D&D heartbreaker. 

You would poor your soul into writing a D&D killer, only for nobody to pay any attention to it. 

Hence the selling joke.

Really, OSR has two types. 

1.  Actual OSR.  These are the old D&D as they used to be, but written legibly.

2.  OSR, but with house rules, typically cribbed from other sources to make the D&D you like.  Ascending AC, weapon traits, roll-to-cast instead of Vancian magic, etc.  These tend to be the ones I just called Heartbreakers.

I like most OSR games.  The really good ones also tend to be free as well.  Basic Fantasy, Bugbears & Borderlands, Olde Swords Reign, and more. 

I think WoTC's mistakes the past few years have been the biggest boon to OSR gaming that we might actually see people play them. 

But, as I said, the OSR's biggest issue is adoption by the player base.  There are so many that you can get Choice Overload.  Even with free games.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on March 10, 2025, 05:23:41 PMSelling.

Seinfeld Laugh track engaged

Quote from: weirdguy564 on March 10, 2025, 05:35:36 PMJokes aside, the main issue I have with OSR is that there are so many of them.  The other name that they used to have was D&D heartbreaker. 

You would poor your soul into writing a D&D killer, only for nobody to pay any attention to it. 

Hence the selling joke.

Really, OSR has two types. 

1.  Actual OSR.  These are the old D&D as they used to be, but written legibly.

2.  OSR, but with house rules, typically cribbed from other sources to make the D&D you like.  Ascending AC, weapon traits, roll-to-cast instead of Vancian magic, etc.  These tend to be the ones I just called Heartbreakers.

I like most OSR games.  The really good ones also tend to be free as well.  Basic Fantasy, Bugbears & Borderlands, Olde Swords Reign, and more. 

I think WoTC's mistakes the past few years have been the biggest boon to OSR gaming that we might actually see people play them. 

But, as I said, the OSR's biggest issue is adoption by the player base.

It's funny you mention heartbreakers, because while I think Basic Fantasy and it's ilk of retroclones are awesome, the ones I've really enjoyed GMing or playing have been stuff like Other Dust, Atomic Punk, Wretched New Flesh, Invisible College, and others which aren't fantasy but still are a OSR framework.

I've played and seen a lot of OSR games that aren't attempting to be D&D, or aren't attempting to be D&D but different.

That's a tough question for me because the bound of what is OSR seem so fuzzy.  Does an OSR game have to have classes?  Does it have to have hit point?  Both of those rules out certain ranges of play.

Allow me to speak as a pointedly NOT OSR indie designer.

OSR is good at marketing to its own community. If you are making an OSR game you can probably find your market pretty easily, so it is relatively easy to make OSR products which at least sell some copies and not impossible to make OSR content which sells really well. That is markedly less true of the broader RPG market, where marketing becomes difficult to impossible without a gigantic web presence. If I had to describe the OSR marketing experience I have seen with a metaphor, it's like fishing with a tidal pool. You don't have to have a boat or even a fishing rod; you just wait for the tide to go out and then grab a trapped fish with your bare hands. It's shocking how simple and reliable a technique this is.

That said, OSR is also limited by this. The OSR has a lot of grognard purity opinions ("this isn't OSR enough") which I don't pretend to understand beyond possibly being a mutant grandchild of OneTrueWayism. This means that the OSR community is one of the worst corners of the RPG space for exploratory design. OSR games may incorporate mechanics long after they are popularized by a few other games, and is rarely, if ever, the source of a new game mechanic. The OSR community is not going to let you take a fishing boat out to see and try to land a 30 pound grouper, or even just to write a game with the narrative of The Old Man and the Sea baked into something. Instead, OSR circles around established mechanics and design pillars quite tightly. Experimentation is at best not rewarded, and in some cases is met with open hostility.

If I had to describe OSR in brief, it's that it's something of RPG junk food. Sure, really good chefs can crush Cheetos and cover a steak in them, but by and large most people are into OSR for comfort food rather than personal growth, and a lot of the negative attitudes you see in the OSR remind me of children complaining when their parents tell them to eat their peas.

How well is going to be in the eye of the beholder, since different people value different aspects of a system.  For me, it's pretty simple:  The more the game lends itself to skills over classes, the less well an OSR framework will work, and vice versa. 

An example is a 3 Musketeers style game.  There's no magic.  There's hardly any variation in the skill sets of the protagonists/antagonists/minions--only degrees and preferences for styles and certain weapons or even techniques.  If you squint and hold your tongue just right, you might be able to have classes for musketeer, soldier, thief, minor noble, churchman--that sort of thing.  You'd need to get pretty clever with the abilities, and then it still is going to be an odd duck.  Play fast and loose with descriptions, I'm sure some GMs and players have run it and made it work well enough.  But I think if a skills-based game wasn't an option for me, I'd use something even more minimal instead of a class system.  If I need to make it up as I go with a few attributes and flavor, then do that.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 10, 2025, 06:47:11 PMHow well is going to be in the eye of the beholder, since different people value different aspects of a system.  For me, it's pretty simple:  The more the game lends itself to skills over classes, the less well an OSR framework will work, and vice versa. 

An example is a 3 Musketeers style game.  There's no magic.  There's hardly any variation in the skill sets of the protagonists/antagonists/minions--only degrees and preferences for styles and certain weapons or even techniques.  If you squint and hold your tongue just right, you might be able to have classes for musketeer, soldier, thief, minor noble, churchman--that sort of thing.  You'd need to get pretty clever with the abilities, and then it still is going to be an odd duck.  Play fast and loose with descriptions, I'm sure some GMs and players have run it and made it work well enough.  But I think if a skills-based game wasn't an option for me, I'd use something even more minimal instead of a class system.  If I need to make it up as I go with a few attributes and flavor, then do that.

My only comment to this is I think you are conflating OSR with class systems, which is often though not always the case, Maze Rats and Knave even come to mind, even though I consider them structural radicals, something like Invisible College is also classless and fairly structural orthodox.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 10, 2025, 06:52:06 PMMy only comment to this is I think you are conflating OSR with class systems, which is often though not always the case, Maze Rats and Knave even come to mind, even though I consider them structural radicals, something like Invisible College is also classless and fairly structural orthodox.

True. RQ2 is OSR, for example. OSR is not TSR only, THAT is where many people derail. An older style of play is OSR.

Quote from: Fheredin on March 10, 2025, 06:30:13 PMThat said, OSR is also limited by this. The OSR has a lot of grognard purity opinions ("this isn't OSR enough") which I don't pretend to understand beyond possibly being a mutant grandchild of OneTrueWayism. This means that the OSR community is one of the worst corners of the RPG space for exploratory design. OSR games may incorporate mechanics long after they are popularized by a few other games, and is rarely, if ever, the source of a new game mechanic. The OSR community is not going to let you take a fishing boat out to see and try to land a 30 pound grouper, or even just to write a game with the narrative of The Old Man and the Sea baked into something. Instead, OSR circles around established mechanics and design pillars quite tightly. Experimentation is at best not rewarded, and in some cases is met with open hostility.

This is my sole comment I've going to give you for this thread, as I'm going to out of sight, out of mind any replies you give.

I find that grognard assertion to be pretty baffling, I've never met in the wild people who talk about Onetruewayism, (and no twitter/X doesn't count) across the forums, discord servers and other places which are OSR orientated I have yet to meet this mythical grognard archetype people seem to insist exists.

I've seen a single youtube personality that kind of holds this opinion, but they also published two games that are fairly radical departures from 0E edition D&D, so they're a bit of an odd exception since they don't hold to their own doctrine.

QuoteIf I had to describe OSR in brief, it's that it's something of RPG junk food. Sure, really good chefs can crush Cheetos and cover a steak in them, but by and large most people are into OSR for comfort food rather than personal growth, and a lot of the negative attitudes you see in the OSR remind me of children complaining when their parents tell them to eat their peas.

You really have a talent for saying some of the most pretentious gobbledegook non-substantive assertions, and wrapping them in  allegory and semantic shrouds and hoping a layman just rolls over and takes it.
Your sophistry skills are dull dross!

Anyone having played or seen any of Kevin Crawford's, Questing Beast's or Pundit's work disproves most of your statements as outright fictitious...

Quote from: bat on March 10, 2025, 06:56:08 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 10, 2025, 06:52:06 PMMy only comment to this is I think you are conflating OSR with class systems, which is often though not always the case, Maze Rats and Knave even come to mind, even though I consider them structural radicals, something like Invisible College is also classless and fairly structural orthodox.

True. RQ2 is OSR, for example. OSR is not TSR only, THAT is where many people derail. An older style of play is OSR.

Perhaps I should have clarified, it doesn't have to always be literal TSR era D&D, only that it's the guiding star so to speak.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 10, 2025, 05:17:23 PMWhy am I bringing all of this up? to point out the unspoken core strength of the OSR to frame the question, because I have yet to find a genre which I don't think the OSR can do, I can name genres it's weaker in, Superheroes are an example, I've run Light City and while it was fun it certainly didn't capture the genre as well as something like Mutants & Masterminds. But at the same time something like a Daredevil or Punisher style game would work well in an OSR framework, or hell even something like The Shadow.

so even in the genre I think it's weak in, it has strengths in some of the specific sub-genres.

I don't disagree, but this has been done in practice for lots of RPG system, not just the OSR. Someone makes a base game, and then people adapt that game to a wide variety of genres.

It's been the standard approach of RPG companies to take their base system and adapt it to different genres. Chaosium started out with RuneQuest, and then used that same base system for Call of Cthulhu, SuperWorld, Stormbringer, Ringworld, and plenty of others. White Wolf's storyteller system was used for many World of Darkness games - but also for the Street Fighter RPG, pulp (Adventure!), superheroes (Aberrant), and so forth. Hero Games' superhero RPG Champions was adapted first into different genre games like Justice, Inc. and Danger International before officially being made into a universal RPG. ICE's Rolemaster lead to Space Master and so forth.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 10, 2025, 06:52:06 PMMy only comment to this is I think you are conflating OSR with class systems, which is often though not always the case, Maze Rats and Knave even come to mind, even though I consider them structural radicals, something like Invisible College is also classless and fairly structural orthodox.

In the original post (OP), you defined OSR as being "based on TSR era D&D". Maze Rats has almost no mechanical connection to TSR-era D&D. It has three stats rated +0 to +2, rolls 2d6 for attack, and uses degree of success for damage. If someone were to use those mechanics in another genre, there is almost no connection.

Quote from: jhkim on March 10, 2025, 07:22:11 PMI don't disagree, but this has been done in practice for lots of RPG system, not just the OSR. Someone makes a base game, and then people adapt that game to a wide variety of genres.

It's been the standard approach of RPG companies to take their base system and adapt it to different genres. Chaosium started out with RuneQuest, and then used that same base system for Call of Cthulhu, SuperWorld, Stormbringer, Ringworld, and plenty of others. White Wolf's storyteller system was used for many World of Darkness games - but also for the Street Fighter RPG, pulp (Adventure!), superheroes (Aberrant), and so forth. Hero Games' superhero RPG Champions was adapted first into different genre games like Justice, Inc. and Danger International before officially being made into a universal RPG. ICE's Rolemaster lead to Space Master and so forth.

No disagreement there, I'm not saying it's an exclusive strength of the OSR, simply that it is one of it's better traits, something like Westends d6 system likewise has good extensibility, and you can see that in how many game used that system to good effect. or any of the aforementioned games you brought up.

QuoteIn the original post (OP), you defined OSR as being "based on TSR era D&D". Maze Rats has almost no mechanical connection to TSR-era D&D. It has three stats rated +0 to +2, rolls 2d6 for attack, and uses degree of success for damage. If someone were to use those mechanics in another genre, there is almost no connection.

Let's consider that statement, if I meant it as literal as you might imply, any OSR game that isn't a direct retroclone of 0e through AD&D 2e wouldn't count, which isn't a useful definition, merely that TSR era D&D is used as a guiding star, it can radically depart in a  structural or doctrinal way, but not both.

I've played TSR modules in Maze Rats before with little effort for conversion, Maze Rats is structurally radical, but tends to produce the same playstyle as old school D&D. hence why I'd include it or something like World of Dungeons, even though it's a PBTA game.

EDIT: Also it's not hard to take Maze Rat's 2d6 combat system and make it work with traditional D&D, chainmail did and was the first combat system, and there is a great streamlined version of that combat system called Chaos Reigns which is a streamlined drop-in-replace version of some of the chainmail combat stuff. free on itch.io

Any game can "do" any setting/genre, contingent on two things: 1) how much modification you're willing to accept while still calling it the same game, and 2) how much you actually care if your rules and setting compliment each other. A surprising number of people just play every setting/genre with D&D rules because it's what they know, and "eh who cares what dice you roll? It's all about roleplaying anyway!"

So I appreciate you phrasing it as "not good at", which is a more honest framing than "can't do".

But the OP seems to be an invitation for hot takes, so here's one: The OSR is not good at "average joe" PCs.

Really, this is just a further explication of the example Steven Mitchell gave above. The basic structure of D&D is built on classes and special abilities. Average people don't fit into archetypal classes and they don't have special abilities, so if you want to represent them with anything other than pure attributes, you need a skill and/or profession system. D&D and its derivatives actually play much better under the assumption that PCs (and classed NPCs) are special heroes with rare gifts.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 10, 2025, 07:29:18 PMLet's consider that statement, if I meant it as literal as you might imply, any OSR game that isn't a direct retroclone of 0e through AD&D 2e wouldn't count, which isn't a useful definition, merely that TSR era D&D is used as a guiding star, it can radically depart in a  structural or doctrinal way, but not both.

By that criteria, my own system counts as OSR.  Now, you can't see it, because it isn't published.  But I don't consider it OSR even though it is mildly compatible with B/X and AD&D modules with some conversion.  I would bet at least half the people on this forum who have experience with OSR would not consider it OSR. 

Once you make the criteria that wide, then your original assertion isn't to tautology territory yet, but it is casting coy glances that way.