If someone is going to make the case that "OSR" always uses d20 mechanics, I'd love to hear it here.

OR

If you're a game-developer already invested in d20-based OSR rules...


OTHERWISE... my question is this:  What is the attraction of retaining the d20 system within the OSR? With all the general dislike of WotC, who owns and controls the D&D brand, and let's be real, the d20 system, does it not forever keep everyone in this radioactive mud-wrestling pit with a corporation that hates all of us?

Another way of putting this: if OSR is a style of gaming with its own brand of conceits, does it *require* d20 mechanics? Many many threads are dedicated to discussing "what games" are OSR (which confuse me - as some have mechanics that traditionally are *not* OSR-ish) and which aren't. The only things I think are ubiquitous, for the most part, are d20 mechanics.

I'll be more specific - Marvel Super Heroes, is one of the OG Supers systems, has massive narrative mechanics (Karma) that would be utterly anathema to most d20-based OSR purists (I think?) but people tend to grandfather MSH into the OSR camp... "because"? I suspect it's vintage era? I dunno. Someone needs to explain it to me.

Why is there no push to completely divorce the OSR from d20 (any flavor) outside of the two parameters above? Since the OSR, depending on your view, is a style of gaming, why is there no momentum to try and take the OSR into other non-d20 systems enmasse and ditch all the WotC residue altogether?

My general thesis is that d20 is going to forever be associated with WotC *because* they own the D&D brand. Outside of nostalgia, what is the draw to the OSR being (mostly) to d20 mechanics and therefore always locked in the shitpit with WotC and it's antics? At least until they go bankrupt... in which case the radiation levels will definitely cool down.

This seems like a disjointed question with a number of loaded assumptions being passed off as merely fact so I'll attempt to understand.

When you mean d20 do you mean the d20 SRD that became popular around 3rd edition D&Ds release, or merely the fact a good deal of core resolution mechanics are based on a d20 roll?

If the former than I'm pleased to inform you a good deal of RPG publishers have moved away from that SRD and the OGL in general as everyone realized it's actually hard to licence and copyright dice mechanics.

If to the later case my question would be what is wrong with using a d20?

As for what is or is not OSR? that is an extremely loaded question, and I'm personally of two mindsets about it.

I wouldn't count Marvel superheros strictly as one as it's too narrativist for my taste, however I'm also inclined to believe that is one of the few ways you can actually emulate the genre.

Though I'm also of the opinion the OSR is as much a mindset as it is anything else, a  microcosm of game development, an alternative branch of ideas and not making the same mistakes that rocked the RPG in the early 2000s.

1. Compatibility with OSR games and adventures?
2. Low barrier of entry for existing gamers to try your system?
3. Basically the same as percents but mentally easier for many?

A lot of OSR publishers use material that is compatible with classic D&D editions because of all the people that still play those editions. You can take a module written for OSE and run it with B/X and vice versa. That built in compatibility to be usable with those older systems is what drives sales.

I am all for looking into other old school games that use something other than-roll D20 to hit, roll damage though. I do still want them to represent the style of old school play.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 12:01:10 PM
If someone is going to make the case that "OSR" always uses d20 mechanics, I'd love to hear it here.

The OSR started among those who wanted to do more with the classic editions of D&D including publishing full rulebooks. And regardless of what folks try to do with the label 'OSR' there remains a substantial group of hobbyists who plays, publishes, and promotes material for the classic edition.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 12:01:10 PM
If you're a game-developer already invested in d20-based OSR rules...

Circa 2005, If SJ Games had half a brain regarding 3rd party publishing I would be writing GURPS material alongside my system neutral settings like Points of Light and Blackmarsh.

However, that wasn't what happened and thanks to the the research done about the early days of our hobby I was able to figure out how to adapt the classic editions to do the things I was doing with GURPS. The result is my Majestic Fantasy RPG rules.

However the point of what I do is to share what I write with a broad audience within the time I have for my hobby. Classic D&D makes this straightforward especially after I figured it out.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 12:01:10 PM
OTHERWISE... my question is this:  What is the attraction of retaining the d20 system within the OSR? With all the general dislike of WotC, who owns and controls the D&D brand, and let's be real, the d20 system, does it not forever keep everyone in this radioactive mud-wrestling pit with a corporation that hates all of us?

Because whatever Hasbro/WoTC wants to do doesn't matter to what those who play, publish, and promote classic editions.

In hindsight, the OGL was a ticking time bomb due to changes in how licenses/contract terms were interpreted since it was written. However now that the 5e SRD is under Creative Common-BY the classic edition hobbyists still have access to the set of terms it needs to keep the classic editions alive.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 12:01:10 PM
Another way of putting this: if OSR is a style of gaming with its own brand of conceits, does it *require* d20 mechanics?

It is not a style of gaming. Never was. The "hack" of the d20 SRD that enabled the full range of support for the classic edition is replicable in the time that folks have for a hobby. The result is that dozens now hundreds of approaches now exist for the themes and mechanics of the classic editions.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 12:01:10 PM
Many many threads are dedicated to discussing "what games" are OSR (which confuse me - as some have mechanics that traditionally are *not* OSR-ish) and which aren't. The only things I think are ubiquitous, for the most part, are d20 mechanics.

They are all bullshit. You are thinking like a gamer and that everything revolves around mechanics.

The common thread that binds the OSR is the hack that created OSRIC and The Basic Fantasy RPG. The hack is that you can take d20 SRD and now the 5e SRD as a starting point for whatever creative vision you possess.

The result may not end up resembling either SRD either in theme or mechanics. But if you follow the author's creative history it can be traced back to what Marshall, Gonnerman, and Finch did with OSRIC and Basic Fantasy. A combination of open content idealism, game mechanics that can't be copyrighted, a body of essential terms shared under an open content license, leveraging digital technology, and print-on-demand.

Thinking of the OSR in terms of style and game mechanics is a dead end and won't account for everything seen being done under its label.

And it confuses and scares people because it is all so nebulous. But if you want creative freedom the OSR is as good as it gets.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 12:01:10 PM
I'll be more specific - Marvel Super Heroes, is one of the OG Supers systems, has massive narrative mechanics (Karma) that would be utterly anathema to most d20-based OSR purists (I think?) but people tend to grandfather MSH into the OSR camp... "because"? I suspect it's vintage era? I dunno. Someone needs to explain it to me.

Because folks who play, publish, and promote classic editions also like Marvel Super Heroes. And some like it enough to put the time in to produce stuff like FASERIP.

Hobbyists are not one-note wonders. They like other things as well. Why do you think Douglas Cole of Gaming Ballistic has an Old Esstential line, in addition, to his GURPS and Fantasy Trip offers? One of the reasons is that he got involved with a bunch of OSR folks in a gaming campaign before he started out and later when it was pointed out that some of these folks pointed out that the Fantasy Trip stuff would work well as an OSR product, he tried it.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 12:01:10 PM
Why is there no push to completely divorce the OSR from d20 (any flavor) outside of the two parameters above? Since the OSR, depending on your view, is a style of gaming, why is there no momentum to try and take the OSR into other non-d20 systems enmasse and ditch all the WotC residue altogether?

Because people find the like the classic editions, its themes and mechanics. Need there be any deeper reason other than that?

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 12:01:10 PM
My general thesis is that d20 is going to forever be associated with WotC *because* they own the D&D brand. Outside of nostalgia, what is the draw to the OSR being (mostly) to d20 mechanics and therefore always locked in the shitpit with WotC and it's antics? At least until they go bankrupt... in which case the radiation levels will definitely cool down.

Oh for fuck sake, do I really need to pull out all the conversations the two of us over past 14 years about this? Why are you still asking this?

Those who play, promote, and publish for the classic editions don't give two shits about what Wizards does. First off the OSR publishers were already the "bad boys" of the industry in the first few years after the release of OSRIC and Basic Fantasy. From 2006 to around 2012, OSR publishers were incessantly mocked by everyone including folks here like the Pundit. The fact folks wound hating D&D 4e helped turn that around. Then Wizards was in outreach mode during the runup to 5e. After 2015 the OSR was a small but prosperous niche of the RPG industry.

So the answer to your question is that the OSR today is like any other independent niche in the hobby. It long been its own thing with its own creative trends and with people constantly entering and leaving. And unlike other niches, the central core of IP it relies upon is not under the control of a single entity like Pinnacle or Wizards.

Why should the OSR abandon what it does just because you have a problem with Wizards and classic D&D mechanics?

I will tell you the same thing I told the Pundit. Publish some OSR material to show the rest of us how we are doing it wrong. Then you will understand how it works.

"Old school" generally is not synonymous with "OSR". The OSR was a specific thing that happened, a specific scene and movement, generally focused around reviving and exploring the D&D of the seventies and early eighties, and specifically the game that emerges from including all the un-fun mechanics of xp for gold, tracking encumbrance, wandering monster checks, reaction rolls and more. Then it took on a life of its own and, like the Supreme Court with pornography, we know it when we see it, but that was still the start of it.

It would be a strange thing to break mechanical compatibility with the earliest editions of D&D, with the Judges Guild products that also influenced the OSR, with all the adventures that have been written for the OSR, and secondarily with the OSR clones (I rank the best of the new adventures higher than clones in importance, but a lot of people run a clone so they're a big part too), and still call a game OSR. Hence, d20, at least in a broad sense.

Other games can be and are just plain old school. Traveller for one had a period of interest in first three or first four Little Black Books of Classic, nothing later. And the more current Mongoose edition of Traveller is still in the position of assuming GM judgement calls if you're running by the book, in contrast to the newer school ethos of spelling out all possible cases for GMs and players alike. But, it's not a gold for xp game, therefore not OSR, just plain grognard old school.

Yeah, the d20 as mechanics things is semi-independent of the rest.  There probably are some associations that cause people to reflexively go to it.  There are certainly good compatibility reasons to consider it.  However, even absent those, it's still a viable mechanic.

For my current system, I started out intending to use 2d10 or maybe 2d12.  I like shallow curves more than 3d6 or the straight d20 from how it feels.  But I also wanted to be able to roll a handful of resolutions all at once with different colored dice and know what happened, which is a lot easier to do with a single die.  My previous system experiment was d100 (roll under).  Roll under didn't scale right for what I was trying to do. (I could have made it fit, but it left some clunky edge cases.)  Sometimes, you perform due diligence in investigating the pros/cons of a mechanic with the rest of the system constraints, and a d20 is the most fitting answer.

Now, separate from that, I'm completely burned out on powers-based or effects-based systems.  Or generic/universal anything.  I can't unsee the "sameness" underneath the widgets.  In fairness to others and me, I've got a lot more narrow set of genres that I want to support.  So all that generic/universal stuff isn't giving me the same payout as others.  Doesn't mean as soon as I go specific it is d20.  See previous d100 attempt.  I've even flirted with dice pools in some prototypes. 

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 02:49:20 PM
The OSR started among those who wanted to do more with the classic editions of D&D including publishing full rulebooks. And regardless of what folks try to do with the label 'OSR' there remains a substantial group of hobbyists who plays, publishes, and promotes material for the classic edition.

Circa 2005, If SJ Games had half a brain regarding 3rd party publishing I would be writing GURPS material alongside my system neutral settings like Points of Light and Blackmarsh.

However, that wasn't what happened and thanks to the the research done about the early days of our hobby I was able to figure out how to adapt the classic editions to do the things I was doing with GURPS. The result is my Majestic Fantasy RPG rules.

However the point of what I do is to share what I write with a broad audience within the time I have for my hobby. Classic D&D makes this straightforward especially after I figured it out.

You're making my larger case (below) for me. I obviously understand the absolute gravity of the d20 ruleset. I *care* more about settings than I do about mechanics, but the mechanics absolutely matter. People play mechanics, whether you like it or not, first, setting comes second (at least for people that play "D&D" whatever that is) You changed your ruleset due to outside issues, but the settings themselves transcended rules. Nothing prevented you from making Alt-GURPS ruleset to support your original concept, you figured out a way to make it work with a different ruleset (and in truth, I'd be willing to bet it a financially better decision).

This is specifically why I claused in my OP - if you're a developer already invested in the OSR - this might not pertain to you. Because *right now* isn't the same as 5, 10 or 15 years ago. Right now, there is about to be a major shift in the TTRPG world with D&D effectively walling itself off. We all know that means a whole lot of people are going to be disgruntled and will likely fall out of the hobby (which is common when editions shift) but it also means a whole lot of them will go elsewhere. That elsewhere is up to the people who make games or currently run games.

My question is why stick with d20 in the OSR if it's not necessary outside of those two parameters that I cited above.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 02:49:20 PMBecause whatever Hasbro/WoTC wants to do doesn't matter to what those who play, publish, and promote classic editions.

In hindsight, the OGL was a ticking time bomb due to changes in how licenses/contract terms were interpreted since it was written. However now that the 5e SRD is under Creative Common-BY the classic edition hobbyists still have access to the set of terms it needs to keep the classic editions alive.

There are different concerns to those categories: Those who play - play what their GM's put before them. Those who publish - are cribbing off the success of the D&D Brand(tm) AND the dissatisfaction of where that Brand has been taken, plus their love of the mechanics. As we've both proven - you can take a D&D Fantasy Setting and use GURPS, OpenD6, Savage Worlds, Homebrew <X>- and still play those settings. People *choose* to publish in d20 under the OSR banner for *reasons* that have more to do with their love of what D&D used to be, and likely out of spite to modern era D&D. And I'm not sure I believe you entirely when you say what WotC wants to do doesn't matter - when the OGL scandal certainly scared the shit out of a *lot* of OGL publishers for a very damn good reason.

Is that problem mitigated? Probably? But I wouldn't say 100% factually - though an awful lot of people made moves to try and ensure that. Some of them are *still* making moves (see: Paizo).

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 02:49:20 PMIt is not a style of gaming. Never was. The "hack" of the d20 SRD that enabled the full range of support for the classic edition is replicable in the time that folks have for a hobby. The result is that dozens now hundreds of approaches now exist for the themes and mechanics of the classic editions.

And I *want* say this is true. It is from the perspective of the microcosm of a very pure OSR (from what I can ascertain) view that I can get behind. However, we both know it's mutated in many many other things depending on who you ask. All under the OSR banner - I mean... we have threads here dedicated to the BroSR for a reason, and that flies in the face of your definition here, but as I'm not affiliated with the OSR in any meaningful manner (oddly), I'm an outsider looking in, I'm pretty sure there are self-described factions of the OSR that wouldn't agree? Or am I wrong?

If your definition was widely accepted, I'd be fine with that. And you're placing yourself fully in the first cut out I made - you're saying the OSR *is* d20 based, so I'm clear? I'd like to hear others that support this. No judgement from me on this - I'd like to hear other OSR aficionados weigh in on it too.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 02:49:20 PMThe common thread that binds the OSR is the hack that created OSRIC and The Basic Fantasy RPG. The hack is that you can take d20 SRD and now the 5e SRD as a starting point for whatever creative vision you possess.

The result may not end up resembling either SRD either in theme or mechanics. But if you follow the author's creative history it can be traced back to what Marshall, Gonnerman, and Finch did with OSRIC and Basic Fantasy. A combination of open content idealism, game mechanics that can't be copyrighted, a body of essential terms shared under an open content license, leveraging digital technology, and print-on-demand.

Thinking of the OSR in terms of style and game mechanics is a dead end and won't account for everything seen being done under its label.

And it confuses and scares people because it is all so nebulous. But if you want creative freedom the OSR is as good as it gets.

This is probably the most concise and definitive definition of the OSR I've seen posted (and you may well have said it in other discussions) but here you're 100% crystal on your opinion on it. And this answers why this thread may not be germane to the rest of what I said - unless there is anyone else that has a different definition of the OSR.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 02:49:20 PMBecause folks who play, publish, and promote classic editions also like Marvel Super Heroes. And some like it enough to put the time in to produce stuff like FASERIP.

Hobbyists are not one-note wonders. They like other things as well. Why do you think Douglas Cole of Gaming Ballistic has an Old Esstential line, in addition, to his GURPS and Fantasy Trip offers? One of the reasons is that he got involved with a bunch of OSR folks in a gaming campaign before he started out and later when it was pointed out that some of these folks pointed out that the Fantasy Trip stuff would work well as an OSR product, he tried it.

But since you've already defined OSR concisely above - then MSH would not be OSR by that definition. OSR-era vintage? Sure. But in and of itself, not OSR (by your definition). And besides, MSH is well supported by their own fans and the idea of going d20 would be anathema to them. Much like, it appears, it's anathema that OSR publishers would leave d20?

Nevermind the fact that Supers TTRPG's are notoriously small populations of the gamingworld. Though, their mechanics from several of the popular systems are truly innovative and some of the best scaling systems ever made. Looking at you MSH and DC Heroes. It's odd to me why those systems have never made a comeback in a non-Supers sense but I digress...

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 02:49:20 PMBecause people find the like the classic editions, its themes and mechanics. Need there be any deeper reason other than that?

Oh for fuck sake, do I really need to pull out all the conversations the two of us over past 14 years about this? Why are you still asking this?

Those who play, promote, and publish for the classic editions don't give two shits about what Wizards does. First off the OSR publishers were already the "bad boys" of the industry in the first few years after the release of OSRIC and Basic Fantasy. From 2006 to around 2012, OSR publishers were incessantly mocked by everyone including folks here like the Pundit. The fact folks wound hating D&D 4e helped turn that around. Then Wizards was in outreach mode during the runup to 5e. After 2015 the OSR was a small but prosperous niche of the RPG industry.

So the answer to your question is that the OSR today is like any other independent niche in the hobby. It long been its own thing with its own creative trends and with people constantly entering and leaving. And unlike other niches, the central core of IP it relies upon is not under the control of a single entity like Pinnacle or Wizards.

Why should the OSR abandon what it does just because you have a problem with Wizards and classic D&D mechanics?

Because until I find some consensus on *what* the OSR is/stands for (and you've done a magnificent job of giving your lucid take on it), I find it reeking of a cargo-cult among its adherents (not necessarily its publishers) who post here day after day griping about what new offense WotC has done, and go on and on for pages about this affront or that. I do not begrudge anyone for liking their favorite system - and *no one* can ever accuse me of hating d20. I don't, so please don't fall into the trap of projecting what you think of as my vitriol for WotC (which is real) to the mechanics of the old-school editions and classics - I don't hold any particular emotional value other than my preferences are what they are. It "feels" from the threads here that many (not all) OSR products are effigies being burned in order to invoke St. Gary Frum Gygax to spite WotC, all while WotC is about to immolate itself, more then actually getting long-term enjoyment from them. I submit it could be both. Doesn't "feel" that way. Especially considering you're the first person in all these threads to simply say: yes it's classic d20 first and foremost.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 02:49:20 PMI will tell you the same thing I told the Pundit. Publish some OSR material to show the rest of us how we are doing it wrong. Then you will understand how it works.

I am publishing (not OSR). I'm not saying anyone publishing OSR is wrong. I'm saying there is an opportunity here to transcend whatever it is you and I might consider "the status quo" - unless you don't care. I care. There is certainly a bet to be made that the fallout of WotC's decision *will* benefit the OSR. There is also a bet to be made something else can help fill that vacuum. Who is banking on the OSR being that thing? And why? It might not be you - and you may not care at all about what I'm asking/saying because you've already placed your bet (so to speak) and have no interest in changing it, hence the clause in my original post. I think you should care, (I don't profess to know) since you're one of the many people here that has tons of material that could be used to fuel another direction.

Anyone else think the OSR is only d20? I'm fine with that definition, personally, since it doesn't impact me directly.

D20 is easiest because its 5% chance of a value.  That being said, if someone wanted a 2D10, now you have a bell curve with the median value actually being relevant.  Just list the stats value in the front of the game to give people and idea of what to expect for values.

Quote from: Ruprecht on November 28, 2023, 02:26:52 PM
1. Compatibility with OSR games and adventures?

Being able to grab a B/X or AD&D module/sourcebook/whatever and use it with a minimum of conversion is a big appeal.

Is 3rd/5th even backwards compatible with earlier editions anymore?

Quote from: Ratman_tf on November 28, 2023, 05:20:04 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on November 28, 2023, 02:26:52 PM
1. Compatibility with OSR games and adventures?

Being able to grab a B/X or AD&D module/sourcebook/whatever and use it with a minimum of conversion is a big appeal.

Is 3rd/5th even backwards compatible with earlier editions anymore?

The issue of compatibility is always weighed against the effort/desire ratio vs. the reality it might be easier to simply make your own flavor of d20. I know if I were going to do something OSRish (and I might one day, I have it mostly outlined already). It would be a 10-lvl 1e/2e inspired hybrid. Some of the changes coming in the new Pathfinder 2e Remastered edition has some of those mechanics - no stats, only bonuses. I'd go -5 to +5 just like Talislanta. I *think* they're doing the same.

But yeah consider the questions you'd have to re-design for with 3.x-5e going backwards. Feats, Progression, Class mechanics, Roles(?), scaling. It can all be done, depends on what you want out of it. It might be easier to stick to an earlier version of Basic and add the bits you want from 3.x or 5e.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 12:01:10 PM
I'll be more specific - Marvel Super Heroes, is one of the OG Supers systems, has massive narrative mechanics (Karma) that would be utterly anathema to most d20-based OSR purists (I think?) but people tend to grandfather MSH into the OSR camp... "because"? I suspect it's vintage era? I dunno. Someone needs to explain it to me.

Why is there no push to completely divorce the OSR from d20 (any flavor) outside of the two parameters above? Since the OSR, depending on your view, is a style of gaming, why is there no momentum to try and take the OSR into other non-d20 systems enmasse and ditch all the WotC residue altogether?

As I see it, people like old-school D&D and the d20 mechanics it uses, and they don't see why they should stop playing games they like.

Rather than calling for a push, I think it would work better to prove the fun and popularity of a non-D20 offshoot within the OSR, and then advocate for that. If there isn't a successful non-D20 offshoot, then it won't support a conversion.

I understand you're a fan of Savage Worlds, and I've been liking it too in my recent experiment with it. However, I suspect that Savage Worlds Pathfinder will still be a niche within a niche. The appeal of Pathfinder isn't in the setting of Golarion, but in the rules set and modules.

Well, there are OSR options that are about as independent of WotC as you would want, to the point of not even using the OGL--Kevin Crawford's work comes to mind, as well as the forthcoming ACKS: Imperial Imprint and Troll Lord's planned updates of Amazing Adventures and Castles & Crusades.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on November 28, 2023, 05:48:49 PM
Well, there are OSR options that are about as independent of WotC as you would want, to the point of not even using the OGL--Kevin Crawford's work comes to mind, as well as the forthcoming ACKS: Imperial Imprint and Troll Lord's planned updates of Amazing Adventures and Castles & Crusades.

Kevin Crawford doesn't use any open license on his work at all. (I just checked the free versions.)

OSR has at least four meanings:

A - Post-2000 interest in TSR D&D.
B - Post-2000 games/modules compatible (at least vaguely) with TSR D&D.
C - A set of arbitrary principles that were not necessarily in TSR D&D: rulings, player skill, simplicity, deadliness, etc.
D - Games vaguely inspired by A, B and C.

For me, the B is the most useful, which is why most people are still using d20 (and often some 2d6 tables that WotC doesn't use) in their games - but also affects A, C and D.

At least 90% of the products that use the OSR label are because B.

Non-TSR retroclones should be called simply retroclones, not OSR, IMO, but as a label you can call your game whatever you like.

For example, the Marvel Super Heroes clone doesn't mention OSR:

"FASERIP is a neo-clone game of super heroes, based on a classic 1980s role-playing game."

(Not that this proves anything, since Dark Dungeons mentions "classic D&D" but not OSR).

Games like Maze Rats, Into the Odd, etc., are "D"; some of their authors are calling themselves "NSR" or similar nowadays.