Quote from: Akrasia;791481:huhsign:

On my planet, the OSR is alive and thriving.

But do you mean people playing old school D&D or people as part of a greater movement encouraging people to play and bringing in new players?

I have run S&W through the summer with new players. OSR? Not in the slightest, just having fun running a game with new people. I don't need the OSR, it took me a while to see it, and I do appreciate the games that came from it, but it is over as a movement, now just game.

Quote from: bat;791483As a movement, the OSR died years ago.

It did?  By what criterion?

The games (S&W, OSRIC, Crypts & Things, etc.) still exist, still are being published, still are being played.  Many OSR websites and blogs still exist (some have died, others have emerged, but if anything there seem to be more today than 5 years ago).  The games are run at cons, indeed, there are cons devoted to OSR and OOP games.  The games are being played by groups.

I have no idea how anyone could regard the OSR 'dead'.

Quote from: bat;791484I have run S&W through the summer with new players. OSR? Not in the slightest, just having fun running a game with new people. I don't need the OSR, it took me a while to see it, and I do appreciate the games that came from it, but it is over as a movement, now just game.

If you're playing OSR games, introducing people to OSR games, etc., then I'm afraid that you're part of the 'movement'.

I don't know what the 'movement' was/is beyond producing the games, promoting them, writing about them, and playing them.

Quote from: Akrasia;791485It did?  By what criterion?

The games (S&W, OSRIC, Crypts & Things, etc.) still exist, still are being published, still are being played.  Many OSR websites and blogs still exist (some have died, others have emerged, but if anything there seem to be more today than 5 years ago).  The games are run at cons, indeed, there are cons devoted to OSR and OOP games.  The games are being played by groups.

I have no idea how anyone could regard the OSR 'dead'.

I do not equate old school style gaming with the OSR, the two are no longer, and never were, mutually exclusive. The OSR was a brief thing, the games, as I said before, are a proud legacy of that time, but hardly because of it, people have been playing older games at conventions for ages, for example.

I was criticized by the Pundit for being "aloof" and being hypocritical about the the definition of the OSR.

I don't bother with offering a definition. Instead I talk about what I observe doing when they label themselves as part of the OSR. Perhaps I wasn't I clear about that. The reason I approach things this way is because I long been an advocate of open source and open content. I also been involved in open source projects.

The first open source project I had any success with was a simulation of the Mercury Space Capsules. Accurate enough that you can use the original flight plans and the craft and switches will do what the flight plan say they should do. It was an add-on for the Orbiter Space Simulator. If anybody interested in that type of thing I provided a link.

My experience has taught me that you can only define movements around open source/open content by what they do. The OSR is about what the member want to do with Classic D&D. The OSR involves more than Classic D&D because it members are not one dimensional caricatures and have other interests.  The result is a fusion of what people are doing with the open content and their own ideas.

It like Linux, some view it about a holy crusade to liberate the masses from the clutches of the evil corporate masters like Microsoft. Other view Linuix as something useful to get something done they need.

The same with the OSR. Some, like the Pundit, view is a design philosophy and a way of the playing the game. Others only care that it gets more material for their favorite games.

The Pundit and others worry about people capturing or hijacking the OSR. But what they don't realize that because the OSR is primarily about something that is open content it not like a mass movement based solely on ideas.

From the beginning the OSR was based around open content. This ensure that there never any gatekeepers or somebody that had any type of effective type of control. That there was always the option to say "fuck you I am doing it my own way."

Indeed the community that gave birth to OSRIC was born of a group that said "Fuck you, I am doing it my own way." to Troll Lords and Castles & Crusade.

Chris Gonnerman and Daniel Proctor were both independent of any other classic D&D community when they released their respective rules. (Basic Fantasy, and Labyrinth Lord).

There was never a time when there was place like the Forge dominating the OSR. It was always a group of distinct independent communities pursuing their own agendas united only by the fact what they were doing was about classic D&D.

And because we are talking about people, not cartoon characters, they have other interests. Interests that merged and fused in with what they were doing with classic D&D. Jeff Rients promoted retro-stupid and gonzo, James Raggi had weird fantasy, I worked a lot with sandbox campaigns and hexcrawl settings. Even Pundit put his own stamp on things with Arrows of Indra being based heavily on non-european mythology.

I never heard of any plausible scenario where a person or small group could dominate the OSR in the way that Ron Edwards and his clique dominated the Forge.  Even at the height of Grognardia popularity there were plenty of people ignoring or criticizing him and being successful in the OSR.

All of this is based on what I observed. I am satisfied with the fact that I have the freedom to write what I want, when I want. I am beholden to no one person or one group to do what I want to do either in promoting, playing, or publishing. I participate in the larger OSR community because I like helping people. That by helping other I increase the pool of ideas that I can draw from for my own work and be better off for it.

Is there a downside to all this? Sure, open content movement are influenced by those who do. Those who do the work, calls the shots. Not everybody wants to publish, not everybody wants to write a blog. And people doing the work are not always right. So there is a tendency to ignore people not publishing, not blogging, etc.

There is no good way of resolving this as the freedom granted by open content license is blind. Any effort to "fix" this invariably comes back to attempts to curtail the freedom of open content and nobody involved will have anything to do with that.

All of this is based on what I observed and experienced. It not my opinion on what ought to be. It is my opinion on how things are.

My opinion on how things ought to be is for more people to publishing and promoting.  As long as it legal, have at it and do your thing. And for those want to play, enjoy the wealth of options to pick from. Also enjoy the fact that many options are in a form that makes it easy to adapt for your own use. Like Swords & Wizardry and my own Blackmarsh.

Quote from: Akrasia;791486If you're playing OSR games, introducing people to OSR games, etc., then I'm afraid that you're part of the 'movement'.

I don't know what the 'movement' was/is beyond producing the games, promoting them, writing about them, and playing them.

I am not part of the OSR nor have I been for years,as are many others, we eschew the moniker vehemently, actually. I am not part of the OSR because I do not believe in many of the things that it had become towards the end. Just because a person plays old school games does not mean that they want to be lumped in with others.

Well said, Estar. You hit the proverbial nail on the head there.

Quote from: bat;791483I have nothing to do with the OSR

You run old school D&D, create material for it, and share it with the world via blog.

If that's not being part of the OSR, I don't know what is.

Quote from: bat;791487I do not equate old school style gaming with the OSR, the two are no longer, and never were, mutually exclusive. The OSR was a brief thing, the games, as I said before, are a proud legacy of that time, but hardly because of it, people have been playing older games at conventions for ages, for example.

You do realize that those of us who started using the term OSR used it to refer to all the activity that was going on with the playing, promoting, and publishing for classic editions of D&D and similar games.

You played Swords & Wizadry this summer. Congratulations you are part of the OSR.

Quote from: bat;791490I am not part of the OSR nor have I been for years,as are many others, we eschew the moniker vehemently, actually. I am not part of the OSR because I do not believe in many of the things that it had become towards the end. Just because a person plays old school games does not mean that they want to be lumped in with others.

What do you understand the 'OSR' to be? :confused:

I've participated in it from the very beginning, and always have understood it to involve producing, promoting, and playing OSR games.  By that definition, you have indeed been participating in the OSR.

Quote from: The Butcher;791492You run old school D&D, create material for it, and share it with the world via blog.

If that's not being part of the OSR, I don't know what is.

Bah, there are many that would gladly point out that I am not part of the OSR because I do not conform to this or that or bow to the right people. I do my thing, if something from my blog works in a game, AWESOME, if not, sorry, I tried. I did what I did for others, not for profit, not for accolades, not for anything else than to be of help. I cannot be a part of something where a few people are dismissive, narcissistic and/or controlling of others, that is not what I signed up for originally. Either we all pitch in, try our best to get along and play fair or we don't play together. I'll live.

Quote from: bat;791484But do you mean people playing old school D&D or people as part of a greater movement encouraging people to play and bringing in new players?

I have run S&W through the summer with new players. OSR? Not in the slightest, just having fun running a game with new people. I don't need the OSR, it took me a while to see it, and I do appreciate the games that came from it, but it is over as a movement, now just game.

But playing these games, and generating material for them (whether in a professional or amateur capacity) is the movement in a nutshell.

Today people are just more aware of the games, and there are more variants out there. It's changed, definitely, but hardly dead, and I don't think if has failed (as another poster seems to think) by any sane metric.

Quote from: bat;791490I am not part of the OSR nor have I been for years,as are many others, we eschew the moniker vehemently, actually. I am not part of the OSR because I do not believe in many of the things that it had become towards the end. Just because a person plays old school games does not mean that they want to be lumped in with others.

You said something interesting that I highlighted in bold. How did the OSR become something you didn't believe in?  Who were the individual or groups involved? And what effect they had on you being able to produce, use, or talk about materials for classic D&D, old school, and similar games?

I will be straight up and say that I will be viewing any answer with extreme skepticism. Because

a) you have a blog, so you know how easy (and hard) to setup and maintain a blog.

b) You have Swords & Wizardry so you are using one of the OSR that is noted for being 100% open content with little or no restricution on how you can use it to play, publish, or promote.

c) And from looking over your blog, I notice you are aware of various OSR products and where they originated. I am assuming, I could be wrong, that you realize that where they sprung form distinct communities with their own independent agendas.


ease communication, open content, and multiple independent groups don't add up to a unified movement. A movement yes but one that only bound by their mutual interests. Anything beyond that is only the opinion of a few.

Quote from: The Butcher;791497But playing these games, and generating material for them (whether in a professional or amateur capacity) is the movement in a nutshell.

Today people are just more aware of the games, and there are more variants out there. It's changed, definitely, but hardly dead, and I don't think if has failed (as another poster seems to think) by any sane metric.

I believe that what is necessary for people to play old school games is accomplished. The roots are there for further embellishment, for branches to grow. New games, new adventures, new add-ons, yes, please! That work is done, the OSR is no longer necessary as a thing for old style playing to flourish, there is no need for a banner now.

I am not saying that the style of gaming is dead by a long shot, but the term OSR is no longer needed-come on, you have people starting up companies like Mark with his Hanging Coffins of the Vampire Queen module, did he need the OSR? Nope, all of the basics are already there. The toolbox was always there, and the OSR, in its time, encouraged what we have now, which is great, but I don't see it as a fluid thing as much as people see the interest is out there to share their ideas.

I don't think a precise definition of the OSR is possible.  But as a vague definition, I think that play styles and mechanics common to the 'first wave' of RPGs (roughly 1974-1984) is helpful.

The OSR generally has focused on AD&D/D&D, but I personally would not restrict it to D&D at all.  

The reason why the OSR has focused on A/D&D is twofold:

(1) A/D&D has always been the most widespread and popular RPG, and

(2) there are two huge discontinuities in the style and mechanics of official publications for A/D&D.  
(The first discontinuity is marked, roughly, by 1985 and the publication of Dragonlance; it reached its apogee with 2e.  This discontinuity has to do with the 'style' and focus of adventures and campaigns.  The second discontinuity is marked by 1999-2000 and the introduction of 3e D&D.  This discontinuity has to do with mechanics, even whilst 3e marketing trumpeted [among other things] a 'return to the dungeon' [i.e., pre-1985 adventure style].  Simply put, the OSR rejects post-1985 style, and post-1999 mechanics.)

In contrast to A/D&D, other 'old school' games -- like Call of Cthulhu and other BRP games (including RuneQuest) -- did not experience these kinds of discontinuities (thought some games, like RQ, did go through periods during which they were not being published at all).

Traveller would be another old school game.  Others have commented on it already (and I'm not familiar enough with Trav to do so).

So, in a nutshell, I would say that the OSR focuses on pre-1985 play styles (sandbox-ish campaigns, no PC 'plot protection', etc.), and pre-1999 mechanics (though some might say pre-1989 or even pre-1985 mechanics instead).