TheRPGSite

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.

About the OGL, I'm still deciding, because I published some OGL stuff, but the best alternative - that WotC can't reach, I think - is using CC.

BFRPG 4e is a good example.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
Right now, there is about to be a major shift in the TTRPG world with D&D effectively walling itself off.

My point remains that if this occurs (and it is likely at this point) it doesn't impact the OSR in the way you think.  First off the OSR will remain a secondary or tertiary choice of the hobbyist who move away from Wizard's D&D brand. The same thing that happened when Pathfinder overtook D&D 4e.

Second the OSR will get a significant influx of creatives who "get" that the foundational IP of the OSR is freely available to use by all in whatever form they want. Like Kelsey and her Shadowdark RPG team but repeated a couple of dozen times.

Then finally, as far as the existing OSR goes it will just continue as it has been marching to the beat of its own drummer. Why? Because individuals with their creative quirks are calling their own shots. 

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
My question is why stick with d20 in the OSR if it's not necessary outside of those two parameters that I cited above.

Because I like working with it now and it is easier to publish my settings, supplements, and settings using the classic edition mechanics than the alternatives. I think you will find others saying variants of this. If you really want to get a good perspective just message Kelsey over at The Arcane Library.

Mine is this, the Majestic Fantasy RPG is a lot less fussy than GURP in regards to the mechanics. It takes less time to do what I want with the Majestic Fantasy RPG at the same level of lethality, roleplaying, and things outside of spellcasting/combat than it does with GURPS. The level of details differs a lot of course. As it turns out GURPS (and Hero System) are overkill for the detail I needed for my settings and adventures. Savage World for that matter. I didn't dial all the way back to stupidly minimalist or free kriegspiel levels either. I added the mechanics that were sufficient and necessary to handle stuff that characters can do in my setting. Then repeatably playtested them across multiple campaigns and multiple groups.

And I did this while remaining compatible with OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. So when I do share my setting and adventures they are still useful to those who don't give a shit about the mechanical details I am concerned about.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
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.

The OSR is been around 18 years now. Earlier back to 2000 or so if you count the old school communities like Dragonsfoot. By 2015 the OSR was way pass nostaglia being a factor. Might as well start accusing the d100 and Mongoose Traveller folks as nostalgia at this point. Whether you like it or not classic edition have a timeless quality about not unlike chess, backgammon, etc. The OSR is going to be around for a long regardless of Wizard's fate.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
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).

Prior to January of 2023 there were two existential threats to the OSR.

1) Wizards adopts a strict interpretation of OGL product identity and start handing out cease and desists to all the close clones.
2) DriveThruRPG stops selling classic edition clones, supplements, and adventures for reasons.

Because in their panic Wizards released the 5e SRD under Creative Common-BY threat #1 is moot. In addition "games mechanics can't be copyrighted" is getting a work out by folks like Paizo (which you mentioned), and ACKS.

It impact is that it will make the kalidoscope of the OSR even more naunced as there will be OGL, CC-BY, ORC offerings alongside various one-off licenses. My money is on CC-BY forming the bulk of the open content of the OSR. However I sure we will see ORC licensed retro-clones of Pathfinder 2e remastered.

Only #2 remains but it more a industry problem than a OSR problem.

So yes what Wizards does or doesn't do at this point doesn't matter to the OSR.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
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?

Yes you are wrong.


What you see, what anybody see is just the first 20% of a very large OSR iceberg. Come at it from a different angle the OSR looks different. I personally list all the variation but I seen enough to see the overall pattern. Individuals deciding for themselves which direction to take the themes and mechanics of the classic edition. With technology such that said individual can make a go of it themselves if they want too. Well like myself.

The BroSR is just another group of folks who decided to go in a particular direction playing, publishing, and promoting the classic editions

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
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.

Keep in mind the OSR is not Savage Worlds where Pinnacle sets the tone and tenor. It is not Fate where it is Evil Hat. It not d100 with the diarchy of Chaosium and Design Mechanism. And it not D&D 5e with Wizards. It is creative anarchy. Each individual who decide to participate decide for themselves what it means and how best to realize their creative vision whether it uses the d20 based mechanics or not.

Whatever good intentions Pinnacle, Evil Hat, Wizards, etc, have the tone the company set dominates people creative vision. It may be easy to pick on Wizards right now but it applies to EVERY company who dominate a creative space in the hobby. The OSR doesn't have that. There isn't a individual or group who dominates the creative energies of the OSR the way Pinnacle, Evil Hat, Chaosium, Design Mechanism does theirs.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
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.

I have no doubt everybody replying will have a definition. But mine is the only one that accounts for ALL the data and observations. From Dungeon World to Shadowdark, OSRIC to Old School Essentials. Little known ones like Blood & Treasure and Delving Deeper.

Hell even accounts for Zweihander where the creative inspiration is not about mechanics but rather focused being a promotional leech especially when it comes to being the only "OSR" community content program. Granted Zweihander has a thematic connection via Warhammer's connection to the Old School UK D&D crowd. But it labeled itself OSR as a promotional gimmick. Not all individuals look at the OSR's foundational material and themes with good intentions.

But Zweihander also illustrates the anarchistic nature of the OSR. There no OSR entity who has the authority to boot it from the OSR category the same way Pinnacle, Chaosium, Wizards, etc. can deal with their categories.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
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?

A MSH clone was published by a OSR author would be discussed on OSR social media and if liked would be a recurring theme throughout the OSR especially when that author other D&D related works are played or promoted. The effect is that becomes honorary OSR. Much in the same way that the DCC RPG and Castle & Crusades are honorary OSR.

How much of a recurring theme? It depends but when observation you can trace it back because someone who was into the classic edition was also really into the other system. And played, promoted, and published for it.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
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),

Appreciate the compliment

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
I find it reeking of a cargo-cult among its adherents (not necessarily it's 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, please don't fall into the trap of projecting what you think of as my vitriol for WotC to the mechanics of the old-school editions and classics - I don't). 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. It seems weird. Especially considering you're the first person in all these threads to simply say: yes it's classic d20 first and foremost.

First off thanks for explaining that.

The bad news is that while the details are different what you describe been a thread of the OSR from the get go. If you want I can give you my detailed observation of the social history of the OSR in this regard. But I think you get my point.

The one time the bitching and griping wasn't an issue was during the runup to 5e when Wizards was kissing the Old School community collective ass as part of its outreach PR. The reprints, the restoration of the PDFs, and the 5e consultations, were all gestures that created a lot of goodwill among the OSR. But any vestige of that is now utterly gone after the giant wooden stake that was the OGL 2.0 fiasco.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
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 consider "the status quo" - unless you don't care. I care.

There is never a "status quo" in the OSR. It always in a constant state of change. For every new Old School Essential there is a Shadowdark.

Frankly I will stack the work I done with my Majestic Fantasy RPG up against anybody else work in the industry. To clear I don't think you are insulting me. But I don't think you understand that how much research, playtesting and care goes into OSR RPGs. People look at Old School Essential and think "Oh is only rehashed B/X D&D". I say to you and those others, fine then bang out something that just as well put together and useful to use for B/X D&D as OSE. Then we will talk. Let's just say you don't get to the $700,000 kickstarter level by putting out the same old shit.

The same with my Majestic Fantasy RPG. I spent a decade of chiseling there, adding that to get the system tweaked just so. And when I wrote it up I didn't present as Rob's vision from the RPG gods. No I peppered it with explanations and Rob's Notes as to why things work the way they do. Then using OSE as an example, I made sure the layout was top notch. The most crucial of which is to put related information on facing pages. It not a gold seller yet on DriveThru but it is getting there. My previous version, the Majestic Wilderlands, was a gold seller.

The reason I am challenging you to show us how we are doing it wrong is because it only by doing that you will truly understand what innovation looks like in the OSR. And what one has to do to make something that thought of as good and useful within the OSR.

Take another example, Blackmarsh. It is not a gold seller and has nearly 20,000 downloads of the free PDF not because I made a map with a numbered hex grid and cover that is a homage to the Greyhawk folio. It does as well as it does because what I did to breathe life into the setting. How it all come together to feel alive despite keeping most entries to one or two short paragraphs.

And I am not the only in the OSR who does this. Doing this with stuff and mechanics that most dismiss as something that needs to be transcended.

Again if you want to really understand this, then do your own OSR project. When you are ready PM me and I will help with what I can.  I understand your trepidation that it may feel like putting on creative binders. I known OSR authors who started out that way but soon found out how interesting and creative it really is.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 04:06:56 PM
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. (I think you should, since you're one of the many people here that has tons of material that could be used to fuel another direction.

I don't care because I am too busy realizing my own creative vision. If it happens to be "the thing" after Wizard implodes then great. But I am going to do what I know I am good at. The feedback I pay attention to will be those things that I am told are needed to my creative vision more accessible to others. I have no problem recasting my creative ideas with other mechanics. But only if I have the time for it and only if I see the interest in that particular set of mechanics.

Keep in mind I already worked up much of my stuff for Fudge/Fate (more Fudge than Fate), AGE, and 5e. After the main release is done, I am considering releasing my How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox using other systems for the examples. But frankly doing that is just window dressing. The main points of the book work regardless of the fantasy system being used (within reason). And all the candidates I have in mind just wind up cluttering the book. Because say what you will of the classic editions there are only a handful of other RPGs that can match it for terseness when it comes to laying out a book.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 28, 2023, 08:38:24 PM
About the OGL, I'm still deciding, because I published some OGL stuff, but the best alternative - that WotC can't reach, I think - is using CC.

Go with CC-BY put the credit Wizards wants in your work and that is it. You don't have to worry about what to make open content.  You could share but it is not required using CC-BY.

If you do share, CC-BY allows people to use the your open content with other license including the OGL and ORC. It is the O negative "universal donor" license of the open content world. Folks just have to make sure the credits are included in the appropriate sections of citing the OGL or ORC licenses.

It seems pretty simple to me
  1)  Most folks already know d20
  2)  d20 is good enough for what people are doing
  3)  Learning a new system is some work
  4)  you can't really tell if a system is better until you learn it
Given all the above, there's not really a compelling reason to pay the price of learning something new when it may not be better and you're already more or less satisfied with what you've got.  Thus if a developer wants to get a lot of people playing his game, it's far easier to go d20

I actually like learning new systems, so I'm happy to try stuff out.  But I have a feeling I'm in a small minority in the hobby.

Most people came to the OSR, whatever it means, either because they wanted to keep playing the old games and things that were sort of compatible with them, or they wanted to play something with the feel of the old games. There is nothing special about any particular decade that makes certain kinds of games more or less appealing. By 1984, you had most of the diversity now seen in games; then in 1991 you get Vampire: The Masquerade, and people are talking more about using dice rolls to tell a story. Vampire: The Masquerade is over thirty years old at this point, so just being an old game doesn't have much to do with the OSR, in any of its forms.

Mostly it's about Gygax and Arneson, maybe with more of a nod to Arneson, and that means mostly OD&D, AD&D. A sense people about the time before slick-looking Basic Sets. And that just means different things to different people. But it doesn't have hardly anything to do with Marvel Super-Heroes or DC Heroes, each with a very broad, different kind of rules-set, and art by actual comic book artists, with the backing of major publishers from the get-go.

While WOTC owns "DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, THE WORLDS GREATEST ROLE PLAYING GAME  tm"  It doesn't own Dungeons and Dragons.  I see no need to either acknowledge or ignore WOTC any further.  Simply do not let Hasbro/WOTC influence you or your play style.

As for the D20 itself, I like it.  I feel that it's not being utilized to it's fullest and is more versatile than it's used in many games.  As such WOTC should have no factor in my decision to have and use D20 dice.

Quote from: tenbones on November 28, 2023, 12:01:10 PM
What is the attraction of retaining the d20 system within the OSR?

People will come up with all sorts of justifications and reasoning, perhaps based on that last adverbial phrase. But after years of reading about the maths, advantages, and disadvantages of every die size and combination, I've come to the conclusion that the underlying reason is always the same, and has nothing to do with the OSR or history.

It's simply this: the D20 is a very cool shape. It is aesthetically pleasing to view, hold, and roll. It has enough sides to display a faceted beauty, and few enough to feel discreet when rolling.

That said, my own homebrew uses D12s! I'd definitely consider my game "old school", and I couldn't care less if someone calls it "OSR" or not.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PM
My point remains that if this occurs (and it is likely at this point) it doesn't impact the OSR in the way you think.  First off the OSR will remain a secondary or tertiary choice of the hobbyist who move away from Wizard's D&D brand. The same thing that happened when Pathfinder overtook D&D 4e.

Why aim for second place with your content? Again this is why I claused this for people already invested. But if there were a reason to make a shift aside from the inertia of d20 - would you not agree this is the time to build for it. This might not be *you*, but from an objective standpoint, shooting for second or third place tacitly implies there's more market to capture. Otherwise you're saying "let's just hope we're more successful". To that specific point I *do* believe the OSR will get more consumers.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMSecond the OSR will get a significant influx of creatives who "get" that the foundational IP of the OSR is freely available to use by all in whatever form they want. Like Kelsey and her Shadowdark RPG team but repeated a couple of dozen times.

Then finally, as far as the existing OSR goes it will just continue as it has been marching to the beat of its own drummer. Why? Because individuals with their creative quirks are calling their own shots.

I think the total amount of people that will fall out of WotC implosion, that stay with the hobby will be more than the OSR can possibly absorb, but *could* absorb more, with a unified front. This is why you and others in the OSR have always had these confusing threads where until now - and it remans so in this thread - no one else outside of you that happens to be a developer for the OSR (even Pundit has never expressly stated this to me, or anywhere else to my recollection tacitly) that the OSR is strictly d20.

You and I have been on threads where people have expressed that many old-school games are "OSR" which by your definition here - are not. This entirely changes the dynamic of this thread simply because no one has expressly stated this.

I certainly am not going to tell people "what" to like. As you said - people are going to do what they want to do. My goal would be for the "OSR" to have a more unified front - but clearly this is never going to be the case outside of "we're like whatever flavor of classic D&D we like, and that's what we're sticking with." Since nothing outside of that, by your definition, and clearly no one else here is naysaying you... then my assumptions are moot. Ironically, it benefits me in the long term.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMBecause I like working with it now and it is easier to publish my settings, supplements, and settings using the classic edition mechanics than the alternatives. I think you will find others saying variants of this. If you really want to get a good perspective just message Kelsey over at The Arcane Library.

I'll ping him. It's of interest to me.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMMine is this, the Majestic Fantasy RPG is a lot less fussy than GURP in regards to the mechanics. It takes less time to do what I want with the Majestic Fantasy RPG at the same level of lethality, roleplaying, and things outside of spellcasting/combat than it does with GURPS. The level of details differs a lot of course. As it turns out GURPS (and Hero System) are overkill for the detail I needed for my settings and adventures. Savage World for that matter. I didn't dial all the way back to stupidly minimalist or free kriegspiel levels either. I added the mechanics that were sufficient and necessary to handle stuff that characters can do in my setting. Then repeatably playtested them across multiple campaigns and multiple groups.

And I did this while remaining compatible with OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. So when I do share my setting and adventures they are still useful to those who don't give a shit about the mechanical details I am concerned about.

Fair enough.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PM
The OSR is been around 18 years now. Earlier back to 2000 or so if you count the old school communities like Dragonsfoot. By 2015 the OSR was way pass nostaglia being a factor. Might as well start accusing the d100 and Mongoose Traveller folks as nostalgia at this point. Whether you like it or not classic edition have a timeless quality about not unlike chess, backgammon, etc. The OSR is going to be around for a long regardless of Wizard's fate.

I have ZERO doubt the OSR will go on its merry way forever. None whatsoever. What I don't think it will do, and I admit I could be wrong, but I don't think I am, is it could do so much more to fill the vacuum that WotC is about leave behind.

Mike Mearls, and a few others (including myself) during the 3.x era (2005-ish or so?) conspired to create a version of D&D that was totally modular, where each person would be assigned to a subsystem and own and design for it in different ways to accommodate popular modes of play. We were going to create a type of d20 core set of mechanics that would allow plug-and-play modularity but could also stand on its own. Effectively, it would have allowed anyone to design content for the core, but all the modular subsystems could be used at the table to tune it up/down/sideways as the GM saw fit without losing coherency. It would have had options for Spellpoints, Vancian, Effects-based magic, different martial systems that plugged directly to the core task-resolution mechanics.

The goal was to allow anyone (even the nascent OSR folks) to plug directly in their non-mechanical setting content, while offering their own mechanical additions for their publications, but keep it all under one roof. It fell through because Mike got the golden-handcuffs offer to join WotC.

That's the kind thing I'd like to see from the OSR. Likely will never happen, which in large part is why I'm not particularly interested in it outside of a couple of people: You and Pundit, who both produce a lot of content that is designed for how I like to run my campaigns. I run sprawling sandboxes. That requires designers that know what they're doing and have clear ideas about how to mechanically express them. I'm not interested in mini-settings, or *just* adventures. This is why things like Shadowdark don't interest me - I do Underdark content all the time (even wrote a book on it) so it's narrow fare where I find nothing about it particularly interesting for the games I run.

Pundit's medieval content sprawls very nicely. But it's also of a unique genre that is a hard sell for my players who want more gonzo-lite than the rigor he presents. It's got hard competition. Your stuff is much more to their tastes. But they're not fans of the system - nor do they want to re-learn the nuances of another d20 system. And that's okay too. I want big-tent options and a solid core, but *I* could do that on my own... but I look at staying with d20 as not a "blue ocean strategy" (ugh, yeah I went corporate) precisely because there are so many disparate d20 options.

Again - why I claused this thread about those already invested: you're already set and in the mix. Pivoting for you is a monumental task.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PM
Prior to January of 2023 there were two existential threats to the OSR.

1) Wizards adopts a strict interpretation of OGL product identity and start handing out cease and desists to all the close clones.
2) DriveThruRPG stops selling classic edition clones, supplements, and adventures for reasons.

Because in their panic Wizards released the 5e SRD under Creative Common-BY threat #1 is moot. In addition "games mechanics can't be copyrighted" is getting a work out by folks like Paizo (which you mentioned), and ACKS.

It impact is that it will make the kalidoscope of the OSR even more naunced as there will be OGL, CC-BY, ORC offerings alongside various one-off licenses. My money is on CC-BY forming the bulk of the open content of the OSR. However I sure we will see ORC licensed retro-clones of Pathfinder 2e remastered.

Only #2 remains but it more a industry problem than a OSR problem.

So yes what Wizards does or doesn't do at this point doesn't matter to the OSR.

What you see, what anybody see is just the first 20% of a very large OSR iceberg. Come at it from a different angle the OSR looks different. I personally list all the variation but I seen enough to see the overall pattern. Individuals deciding for themselves which direction to take the themes and mechanics of the classic edition. With technology such that said individual can make a go of it themselves if they want too. Well like myself.

The BroSR is just another group of folks who decided to go in a particular direction playing, publishing, and promoting the classic editions

It is precisely this disparate nature of the OSR, that makes me point out: why stand separate when a confederation of OSR developers (and new ones!) can't plant a banner with the big-tent push with a ruleset designed to open the flaps for the fallout? Even I, as someone that looks askance at all the OSR products (outside of yours and Pundits stuff, there is very little OSR material I've seen that is useful to me in terms of setting, although Venger's Chaalt looks fun. I think of the WotC implosion as an enterprise-level opportunity, not an individual going-it-alone one, at least in the OSR sense. Sure I think it'll spell some increase in sales for the OSR in general - but I think that a united front could drive more excitement and bring in more to the fold and give them a place to start over. Because that's exactly what they'll be doing.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PM
Keep in mind the OSR is not Savage Worlds where Pinnacle sets the tone and tenor. It is not Fate where it is Evil Hat. It not d100 with the diarchy of Chaosium and Design Mechanism. And it not D&D 5e with Wizards. It is creative anarchy. Each individual who decide to participate decide for themselves what it means and how best to realize their creative vision whether it uses the d20 based mechanics or not.

Whatever good intentions Pinnacle, Evil Hat, Wizards, etc, have the tone the company set dominates people creative vision. It may be easy to pick on Wizards right now but it applies to EVERY company who dominate a creative space in the hobby. The OSR doesn't have that. There isn't a individual or group who dominates the creative energies of the OSR the way Pinnacle, Evil Hat, Chaosium, Design Mechanism does theirs.

Absolutely. I'm factoring that into my own personal future plans. But Chaotic Anarchy is also a limiting factor in its own right. But if that's cool with you, then you're fine. I want more from the potential of this event.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMI have no doubt everybody replying will have a definition. But mine is the only one that accounts for ALL the data and observations. From Dungeon World to Shadowdark, OSRIC to Old School Essentials. Little known ones like Blood & Treasure and Delving Deeper.

Hell even accounts for Zweihander where the creative inspiration is not about mechanics but rather focused being a promotional leech especially when it comes to being the only "OSR" community content program. Granted Zweihander has a thematic connection via Warhammer's connection to the Old School UK D&D crowd. But it labeled itself OSR as a promotional gimmick. Not all individuals look at the OSR's foundational material and themes with good intentions.

But Zweihander also illustrates the anarchistic nature of the OSR. There no OSR entity who has the authority to boot it from the OSR category the same way Pinnacle, Chaosium, Wizards, etc. can deal with their categories.

See, the difference of perspective we have here is you're fine with the current status-quo, as it requires nothing from you that you're not already doing. I'm looking at this event as an opportunity of rare occurrence. I happened to be feverishly planning for this long before WotC decided down this path - and now, I'm not sure if I'm going to hit the sweet-spot due to the timing of their self-immolation. But I'm plugging away.

If standing pat is okay, and like I said earlier - it's a good bet for OSR folks already in that bubble that will see some interest in their products. I think it could be more. Much more. And I take you for your word on the OSR history and analysis, which I feel is accurate. It also means that it's all self-contained in its own sphere of influence - which is in your own words Creative Anarchy, which gives you ultimate freedom, but also has its own scaling drawbacks that don't appear to be accounting for what's coming, unless there is some big announcements to be made to attract people over. But maybe no one cares?

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMA MSH clone was published by a OSR author would be discussed on OSR social media and if liked would be a recurring theme throughout the OSR especially when that author other D&D related works are played or promoted. The effect is that becomes honorary OSR. Much in the same way that the DCC RPG and Castle & Crusades are honorary OSR.

How much of a recurring theme? It depends but when observation you can trace it back because someone who was into the classic edition was also really into the other system. And played, promoted, and published for it.

I don't buy that. I *like* your clean delineation. Don't backtrack on me now! The moment you imply that anything that can be backtracked to their "classic renditions" opens up the world of shit that is gross reality of "Chaotic Anarchy" and shit like Zweihander coat-tail riding on the OSR train. This is exactly what has given me confusion about the OSR and what it is over these years. When you have die-hard OSR folks like Pundit writing and filming SCREEEEEEDS (good ones too) about GNS theory and its shitty outcomes (I actually think it's shittier in ramifications to the cottage TTRPG industry than Pundit might), talking about how generally <X> mechanics should never be in TTRPG's to begin with, only to find exceptions to that be included into the OSR tent for... reasons... Nah! fuck that. I like saying OSR is d20 foundationally. Because it means I know exactly what the parameters are.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMThere is never a "status quo" in the OSR. It always in a constant state of change. For every new Old School Essential there is a Shadowdark.

Frankly I will stack the work I done with my Majestic Fantasy RPG up against anybody else work in the industry. To clear I don't think you are insulting me. But I don't think you understand that how much research, playtesting and care goes into OSR RPGs. People look at Old School Essential and think "Oh is only rehashed B/X D&D". I say to you and those others, fine then bang out something that just as well put together and useful to use for B/X D&D as OSE. Then we will talk. Let's just say you don't get to the $700,000 kickstarter level by putting out the same old shit.

But there is a status-quo in the OSR. The OSR *is* its own status-quo directly relative to every other TTRPG vs. the sick Elephant in the room called WotC.  I'm *assuming* that OSR publishers right now, are getting some sales traction by the rats leaving the WotC ship early. Constant change in the OSR *is* the status-quo. That is a limiting factor unless someone produces enough content to hold people. YOU and a few others in the OSR are the ones that produce enough content under the OSR banner that is not trying to replicate the model TSR (more intelligently without spreading too thin on content no one wants*).

The difference is, since I'm a corporate slob (for now), I do equate time=money. And that means you get one good sales pitch off the jump to grab momentum. Again - this is where the clause in the OP is germane if you're already invested, then this part of the post may not be for you in this specific case, but the rest of your response has been gold.

As someone that has been part of a couple of published games (Talislanta) I'm familiar with what it takes to get a product to market, heh and getting more familiar with it everyday. There is a marketing aspect of the OSR that is limited by the fact it's tied to older editions of d20 simply for the same reasons that people didn't continue to run those editions because the mob was more interested in chasing whatever shit WotC was currently serving up. I *prefer* older editions of D&D by FAR. But the pie has grown, and getting people to play older editions of D&D over 5e is pulling teeth. Ironically pitching an OSR game is preferential simply by saying "It's like D&D" vs. telling players it's tied to a specific older version.

I think the appeal is limited for those reasons to those not already engaged with the OSR. It's my guess I'm betting on. Anyone new to the hobby will not know the difference. Those that are in the hobby, know the branding, and likely feel as I do - fond, but not committed. At minimum "the OSR" needs a new marketing push - but it's likely not going to happen due to the nature of its "structure", or lack thereof. Of course on an individual level anyone within the OSR can breakout... but as an umbrella, I think the OSR is its own thing, and holds its own status-quo within the larger hobby.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMThe same with my Majestic Fantasy RPG. I spent a decade of chiseling there, adding that to get the system tweaked just so. And when I wrote it up I didn't present as Rob's vision from the RPG gods. No I peppered it with explanations and Rob's Notes as to why things work the way they do. Then using OSE as an example, I made sure the layout was top notch. The most crucial of which is to put related information on facing pages. It not a gold seller yet on DriveThru but it is getting there. My previous version, the Majestic Wilderlands, was a gold seller.

The reason I am challenging you to show us how we are doing it wrong is because it only by doing that you will truly understand what innovation looks like in the OSR. And what one has to do to make something that thought of as good and useful within the OSR.

The fact you spent a decade polishing and polishing shows. Here's the thing, we have different standards of what we're talking about. I'm talking about what could be. You're talking about what is. YOU deserve to be showered with money. So does everyone else making good content. I don't talk a lot about my personal life, I live well. But my standard of what I want in the OSR (which is largely moot now, since it's obvious that it'll likely never happen) is that I'd love nothing more than the OSR to band together and absorb *all* of the D&D fanbase writ large.

Could it happen? Not under the rubric of Chaotic Anarchy as individuals standing alone. United with the guys banded together making something big and special setting and ruleswise? It would *energize* people. I think in this regard because it's still d20, it's a harder sell for the exact reasons you've already cited. Nothing I say is going to convince people already invested in d20 of any stripe to go outside of d20 with just words, especially a new brand of d20. It's competing for dollars already going to d20 products. This is not the Blue Ocean Strategy I'm advocating for. But bring a good product, using "Old School" principles, outside of d20, with good marketing and a long-term plan? That is a better strategy, to me, in the coming years as an individual creator. First and foremost I'm a setting guy. But I also recognize that having a good system under it is hugely important. Who knows? I might finally join the OSR later as its own edition with what I'm working on. I'd rather walk into an established group of consumers with a product they want after it's established elsewhere.

This is why Savage Worlds Pathfinder and Savage Worlds Rifts are so successful. Solid ruleset. Disgruntled Pathfinder and D&D players are pouring in. Rifts? Arguably the most *die hard* fanbase outside of Warhammer fans that exists who I never thought in a bazillion years would ever cross over to Savage Worlds, are pouring in. It was slow at first, but now it's widely accepted. So much so that the Sean Robberson is the line-developer and is the partner at Palladium. For the first time in years Palladium is turning itself around - which is great.

Now I'm not saying this to be a rah-rah about Savage Worlds - I'm using it as an example. Yes, you're absolutely right Pinnacle owns the system and branding. But they do give their partners a ton of leeway. As a creator you're not obligated to stay in their ecosphere either. There is a way to leverage your setting across multiple rulesets without losing fidelity IF the rules interpretations are good and can support the conceits appropriately.

This is where I put d20, generally, into its own box. It handles a range of play very well. Other systems have better scaling, but perhaps they don't do granular detail as well as d20 can. Since you've defined (and still no one has naysayed you - fuck your grandfathering clause LOL) as d20, I think there is a better path for the OSR's settings outside of just d20 (but by all means do d20 too.)

OSR is not going anywhere. I'll say it a thousand times. It's on the line of infinite regression. It will continue *forever* as long as d20 is the du-jour system of their banner. But it will also be limited by that conceit. And that's fine for many, but for my time, I'll need more than that alone because I want to offer more to the hobby rather than staying in one spot. I'm willing to sell good ideas in the systems of other people prefer as long as it fits.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMTake another example, Blackmarsh. It is not a gold seller and has nearly 20,000 downloads of the free PDF not because I made a map with a numbered hex grid and cover that is a homage to the Greyhawk folio. It does as well as it does because what I did to breathe life into the setting. How it all come together to feel alive despite keeping most entries to one or two short paragraphs.

And I am not the only in the OSR who does this. Doing this with stuff and mechanics that most dismiss as something that needs to be transcended.

Again if you want to really understand this, then do your own OSR project. When you are ready PM me and I will help with what I can.  I understand your trepidation that it may feel like putting on creative binders. I known OSR authors who started out that way but soon found out how interesting and creative it really is.

Right. Because you are one of the rare unicorns in the OSR that *does* do this. Yes there are others, but the OSR by and large doesn't give this kind of care. I don't mean to sound harsh about it - YOU and the few others in the OSR are still under the banner of what others in the OSR don't do at your standard. I used to do work for Joseph Goodman, even if his company is going the ideological shit-bag route, I will never say a bad thing about Joe Goodman for personal reasons (he went out of his way during a medical scare I had without *any* need to). I will say DCC does *nothing* for me, it is not meant for me. Most of the OSR content is not meant for me, outside of yours and a few others.

My larger goals is not just producing TTRPG content, mind you. I'm wanting to teach people to game at the level where sprawling settings will be the primary product of consumption regardless of ruleset. So from my perspective the OSR banner has gems in it, but it's also surrounded by things *I* personally find not useful, but useful for a certain mode of play. Your material transcends most of it, but it's also under the OSR banner because that's how you've marketed it. To outsiders that could be hit or miss. But you're also marketing largely to a self-contained world of the OSR itself.

There is value in that for sure. But again, I think it could be more. Particularly for Majestic Wilderlands. This conversation has been extremely useful for me, and it's convinced me that my future plans does have room for OSR content. But it will come after. And yes, I'll definitely hit you up on it.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:15:42 PMI don't care because I am too busy realizing my own creative vision. If it happens to be "the thing" after Wizard implodes then great. But I am going to do what I know I am good at. The feedback I pay attention to will be those things that I am told are needed to my creative vision more accessible to others. I have no problem recasting my creative ideas with other mechanics. But only if I have the time for it and only if I see the interest in that particular set of mechanics.

Keep in mind I already worked up much of my stuff for Fudge/Fate (more Fudge than Fate), AGE, and 5e. After the main release is done, I am considering releasing my How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox using other systems for the examples. But frankly doing that is just window dressing. The main points of the book work regardless of the fantasy system being used (within reason). And all the candidates I have in mind just wind up cluttering the book. Because say what you will of the classic editions there are only a handful of other RPGs that can match it for terseness when it comes to laying out a book.

We need to talk. I'm sending you a PM later. I think there might be something we can converge on!

Because, as others have pointed out, by retaining compatibility to other OSR (Understanding OSR as the retroclones and the games that aren't but use the same underlaying mechanics) games the pool of potential buyers is bigger, just look at Kevin Crawford, lot's of people (my self included) own his stuff while not playing his games, because I can steal from it for my own homebrew.

Take my WIP Pulp OSR Game, the bestiary is now 250 entries deep and counting, lots of those aren't on any WotC product that I know off. So, lets say your poison of choice is B/X - OSE, and you own Gangbusters B/X edition, you can, with zero to verylittle work, use any of the entries in my bestiary, so you might buy my game just for that reason.

Then there's the because I like the mechanics and because fuck WotC reasons too.

Quote from: estar on November 28, 2023, 11:22:06 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 28, 2023, 08:38:24 PM
About the OGL, I'm still deciding, because I published some OGL stuff, but the best alternative - that WotC can't reach, I think - is using CC.

Go with CC-BY put the credit Wizards wants in your work and that is it. You don't have to worry about what to make open content.  You could share but it is not required using CC-BY.

If you do share, CC-BY allows people to use the your open content with other license including the OGL and ORC. It is the O negative "universal donor" license of the open content world. Folks just have to make sure the credits are included in the appropriate sections of citing the OGL or ORC licenses.

I was thinking of using BFRPG as a basis. I don't care if anyone else copies my stuff, I find that unlikely (and fair, since I'm using other people's stuff).

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 29, 2023, 03:26:54 PM
I was thinking of using BFRPG as a basis. I don't care if anyone else copies my stuff, I find that unlikely (and fair, since I'm using other people's stuff).

I have to change my advice you have to share the entire content (text) of your work as the new Basic Fantasy is shared under CC-BY-SA (Share-alike).

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?

What do you mean by D20? The specific OGL SRD? Well, despite that 3.x one now being CC-BY-SA a lot of the OSR has dumped it. In response to earlier this year BFRGP halted nearly all supplement releases to go back and remove all SRD language resulting in BFRPG 4th coming out. Pazio just released new PF for the same reason. The recently KS ACK: Imperial Imprint removed all OGL material (and AM argues it is better for it, at least around spells). So, it's pretty clear for that definition of D20, it's going, going, and soon gone.

If you mean the through line of using a D20 for combat along with six stats and so on, why is it used?

Because it is the lingua franca of the hobby. It always has been.  Even in the 80s there were multiple translations of other things to and from it but rarely between other things directly. The oldest SRD, IMHO, is The Challenges Game System by Tom Moldvay after he left TSR. It was published in the late 80s to use as a reference to write D&D material without TSR lawyers calling you.

Nothing has replaced the system for that. It's going to be hard to get people who want to engage a play style popular among D&D players prior to Moldvay's pseudo-SRD to move to GURPS or Savage Worlds or even BRP which at least dates to that era.

Removed as it was based on misreading what I quoted.

Quote from: pawsplay on November 29, 2023, 04:39:22 AM
Most people came to the OSR, whatever it means, either because they wanted to keep playing the old games and things that were sort of compatible with them, or they wanted to play something with the feel of the old games. There is nothing special about any particular decade that makes certain kinds of games more or less appealing. By 1984, you had most of the diversity now seen in games; then in 1991 you get Vampire: The Masquerade, and people are talking more about using dice rolls to tell a story. Vampire: The Masquerade is over thirty years old at this point, so just being an old game doesn't have much to do with the OSR, in any of its forms.

This, pretty much although I'd push both your dates back a bit...I think you can find examples of people advocating, and providing rules for, any playstyle discussed today by 1979 and maybe earlier. I used to use a specific Space Gamer article as my touchstone, although much was implied instead of direct, but collecting old A&E issues shows me how much of the hobby was there before I came over from hex and chit in 1977.

Quote from: estar on November 29, 2023, 03:43:41 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 29, 2023, 03:26:54 PM
I was thinking of using BFRPG as a basis. I don't care if anyone else copies my stuff, I find that unlikely (and fair, since I'm using other people's stuff).

I have to change my advice you have to share the entire content (text) of your work as the new Basic Fantasy is shared under CC-BY-SA (Share-alike).

Sounds fair enough! Thanks!

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 29, 2023, 01:16:08 PM
Because, as others have pointed out, by retaining compatibility to other OSR (Understanding OSR as the retroclones and the games that aren't but use the same underlaying mechanics) games the pool of potential buyers is bigger, just look at Kevin Crawford, lot's of people (my self included) own his stuff while not playing his games, because I can steal from it for my own homebrew.

Take my WIP Pulp OSR Game, the bestiary is now 250 entries deep and counting, lots of those aren't on any WotC product that I know off. So, lets say your poison of choice is B/X - OSE, and you own Gangbusters B/X edition, you can, with zero to verylittle work, use any of the entries in my bestiary, so you might buy my game just for that reason.

Then there's the because I like the mechanics and because fuck WotC reasons too.

These are very good points worth considering.

Quote from: PulpHerb on November 29, 2023, 07:18:53 PM
What do you mean by D20? The specific OGL SRD? Well, despite that 3.x one now being CC-BY-SA a lot of the OSR has dumped it. In response to earlier this year BFRGP halted nearly all supplement releases to go back and remove all SRD language resulting in BFRPG 4th coming out. Pazio just released new PF for the same reason. The recently KS ACK: Imperial Imprint removed all OGL material (and AM argues it is better for it, at least around spells). So, it's pretty clear for that definition of D20, it's going, going, and soon gone.

If you mean the through line of using a D20 for combat along with six stats and so on, why is it used?

Because it is the lingua franca of the hobby. It always has been.  Even in the 80s there were multiple translations of other things to and from it but rarely between other things directly. The oldest SRD, IMHO, is The Challenges Game System by Tom Moldvay after he left TSR. It was published in the late 80s to use as a reference to write D&D material without TSR lawyers calling you.

Nothing has replaced the system for that. It's going to be hard to get people who want to engage a play style popular among D&D players prior to Moldvay's pseudo-SRD to move to GURPS or Savage Worlds or even BRP which at least dates to that era.

So as I see it - OSR = d20. Pick whatever edition, stripe etc. Not just the WotC pap, but let's not lose sight of the fact they are, and always will be the 80-ton shit-flinging pink-haired gorilla looming over our village. The OSR, and basically every other indie-publisher (which is everyone) - is on the receding line from that. When the 80-ton gorilla goes off to cave and seals itself inside, as it's about to do... I'm wondering what is the attraction to d20 as a system other than familiarity?

While I confess I do possess the strain of hubris that believes I can make a better d20 mousetrap. I'd not be lying when everytime I get a wild hair up my ass to do it (not to mention the *time*) to start putting it together beyond the basic structures I've made, I always feel this energy could/should take it into better abstractions that make it qualitatively less d20. There is *definitely* a sweet spot where d20 sings, no question.

I suspect the following: I like running big big sweeping sandbox campaigns, where PC's start wherever we decide (normal people, exceptional people, whatever) but I want them to have unlimited scaling potential to grow within the constraints of the setting, *not* the rules. d20 *really* starts to strain post 10th level. Which is FINE. There is scant support for GM's to learn how to run games post-10th, much less on a chassis that was never intended to go beyond 10th. But I maintain it *could* if it were re-designed correctly.

It's a me problem that 1) because *I* want to let campaigns go to Domain level, hell even extra-planar Domain level IF the setting warrants it. 2) New players don't really conceive of this level of play well, and GM's that have the capacity to maintain high-level play are rare. This gets reinforced by the fact that it takes years to learn to do this stuff on your own and I say "Why do it while working against your own mechanics?". 3) Maybe people just don't really care? This is one I'm less sure about. I waffle on it on any given day.

With the Pink-Haired Gorilla about to take a nap - I'd ideally like for us to relaim this space. By "us" I mean the casually sane people that actually like to game with a little more depth. It could be I suffer from better-mouse-trap syndrome. I firmly believe that the OSR is a "safe space" because of familiarity over actual utility. Yes I realize one can support the other. But this is effectively me being the Betamax guy.

Guys... Betamax IS technically better than VHS.

Quote from: tenbones on November 30, 2023, 03:36:24 AM
When the 80-ton gorilla goes off to cave and seals itself inside, as it's about to do... I'm wondering what is the attraction to d20 as a system other than familiarity?

That's a pretty big advantage, and it will remain for quite some time. If WotC leaves the TTRPG industry entirely, and leaves it open to some other manufacturer, then yeah, we would see over a couple decades something new building up. But for the foreseeable future, something D&D adjacent will have the lowest barrier to adoption.

Quote from: tenbones on November 30, 2023, 03:36:24 AM

Quote from: PulpHerb on November 29, 2023, 07:18:53 PM
What do you mean by D20? The specific OGL SRD? Well, despite that 3.x one now being CC-BY-SA a lot of the OSR has dumped it. In response to earlier this year BFRGP halted nearly all supplement releases to go back and remove all SRD language resulting in BFRPG 4th coming out. Pazio just released new PF for the same reason. The recently KS ACK: Imperial Imprint removed all OGL material (and AM argues it is better for it, at least around spells). So, it's pretty clear for that definition of D20, it's going, going, and soon gone.

If you mean the through line of using a D20 for combat along with six stats and so on, why is it used?

Because it is the lingua franca of the hobby. It always has been.  Even in the 80s there were multiple translations of other things to and from it but rarely between other things directly. The oldest SRD, IMHO, is The Challenges Game System by Tom Moldvay after he left TSR. It was published in the late 80s to use as a reference to write D&D material without TSR lawyers calling you.

Nothing has replaced the system for that. It's going to be hard to get people who want to engage a play style popular among D&D players prior to Moldvay's pseudo-SRD to move to GURPS or Savage Worlds or even BRP which at least dates to that era.

So as I see it - OSR = d20. Pick whatever edition, stripe etc. Not just the WotC pap, but let's not lose sight of the fact they are, and always will be the 80-ton shit-flinging pink-haired gorilla looming over our village. The OSR, and basically every other indie-publisher (which is everyone) - is on the receding line from that. When the 80-ton gorilla goes off to cave and seals itself inside, as it's about to do... I'm wondering what is the attraction to d20 as a system other than familiarity?

While I confess I do possess the strain of hubris that believes I can make a better d20 mousetrap. I'd not be lying when everytime I get a wild hair up my ass to do it (not to mention the *time*) to start putting it together beyond the basic structures I've made, I always feel this energy could/should take it into better abstractions that make it qualitatively less d20. There is *definitely* a sweet spot where d20 sings, no question.

I suspect the following: I like running big big sweeping sandbox campaigns, where PC's start wherever we decide (normal people, exceptional people, whatever) but I want them to have unlimited scaling potential to grow within the constraints of the setting, *not* the rules. d20 *really* starts to strain post 10th level. Which is FINE. There is scant support for GM's to learn how to run games post-10th, much less on a chassis that was never intended to go beyond 10th. But I maintain it *could* if it were re-designed correctly.

It's a me problem that 1) because *I* want to let campaigns go to Domain level, hell even extra-planar Domain level IF the setting warrants it. 2) New players don't really conceive of this level of play well, and GM's that have the capacity to maintain high-level play are rare. This gets reinforced by the fact that it takes years to learn to do this stuff on your own and I say "Why do it while working against your own mechanics?". 3) Maybe people just don't really care? This is one I'm less sure about. I waffle on it on any given day.

With the Pink-Haired Gorilla about to take a nap - I'd ideally like for us to relaim this space. By "us" I mean the casually sane people that actually like to game with a little more depth. It could be I suffer from better-mouse-trap syndrome. I firmly believe that the OSR is a "safe space" because of familiarity over actual utility. Yes I realize one can support the other. But this is effectively me being the Betamax guy.

Guys... Betamax IS technically better than VHS.

The biggest advantage to the d20 is that it's in 5% increments.  Mathematically, each unit is significant enough yet small enough for some good granularity.  There's a bunch of different ways you could use a d20 because of this, most aren't exploited by any game mechanic I know of.  No other die I know of is this perfect.

That doesn't mean we have to shackle ourselves to WOTC at all.  They don't hold a patent on the die nor do they hold control over those that use it for play or game design.

Even though I disagree with you and think we should keep our d20s, I have a great appreciation for you bringing this topic in.  It gives us all a real chance to look at a nexus of ideas, game design, and affiliation.  Thank you.

Greetings!

I'm Old School. I like D20. The simple system and mechanic for just about everything. It is the system I have been accustomed to using now for decades.

I have played and GM'd other game systems. Pendragon, Rolemaster, WFRP, Talislanta.

Still, most of the players in my circles, love D20.

I am just not enthused about learning and embracing new systems. Old School D&D is good enough.

At this point, I have developed my world, systems, and everything to a point of running like a very smooth and reliable machine. My game world and the sub-systems embraced within essentially run themselves.

As far as WOTC goes, what they do or don't do--is now entirely irrelevant to me. I used to be a fan, and a regular customer--being something of a "whale"--spending thousands of dollars on WOTC each and every year. Now? Fuck 'em. I buy weird, third-party books and supplements now, and buy my game miniatures from Reaper Miniatures, or from Etsy. Furthermore, my own personal library literally has multiple bookcases, filled with row upon row of gaming books. I have a dozen game systems, besides D&D, at my fingertips. However, as I mentioned though, I like D&D. I am, however, way past the point of giving a fuck what WOTC does. As the recent expression goes, "ZERO FUCKS GIVEN!" *Laughing*

Of course, I never imagined in the past that I would be here, concerning WOTC, as I am now. *Shrugs* Right? It is what it is.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Funny how we're debating d20 versus the world when there is division in how to use the d20 itself. Black Hack and a few others cling to roll-under but roll-over clearly dominates. D&D uses both but leans heavily on Roll-over.

Quote from: tenbones on November 30, 2023, 03:36:24 AM
I suspect the following: I like running big big sweeping sandbox campaigns, where PC's start wherever we decide (normal people, exceptional people, whatever) but I want them to have unlimited scaling potential to grow within the constraints of the setting, *not* the rules. d20 *really* starts to strain post 10th level. Which is FINE. There is scant support for GM's to learn how to run games post-10th, much less on a chassis that was never intended to go beyond 10th. But I maintain it *could* if it were re-designed correctly.

It's a me problem that 1) because *I* want to let campaigns go to Domain level, hell even extra-planar Domain level IF the setting warrants it. 2) New players don't really conceive of this level of play well, and GM's that have the capacity to maintain high-level play are rare. This gets reinforced by the fact that it takes years to learn to do this stuff on your own and I say "Why do it while working against your own mechanics?". 3) Maybe people just don't really care? This is one I'm less sure about. I waffle on it on any given day.

My experience is that no mechanic really scales well for zero to almost god-like when you consider all aspects.  Some mechanics scale well within the constraints of the intended settings, conceits, play style, and complexity of the game. However, those all involve compromises. Just a few examples of what I mean:

A universal mechanic makes your game easier to learn.  It can also easily fall into making it seem more bland than it has to be.  This is the real unsung hero of the d20 for most things, with other dice for damage and niche effects in d20-style games. I have some players that have played for over 3 decades (albeit not all d20 style games) who still occasionally will pick up a d10 instead of a d8 or vice versa.  Games just aren't on their brains enough that they have instant pattern recognition for die shapes like we do.  Every now and then, I'll catch one of them rolling a d12 for a d20, and wondering why they can't hit anything. (About once a year this happens.)  I shudder to think what trying to play DCC would do to them.   Outside of those rare exceptions though, the mistakes are confined to damage dice, where they don't really slow the game down much and don't even affect the outcome all that drastically. 

Of course, this is also an argument for a game using nothing but d6s.  Even the most casual player struggling with other parts of GURPS or Hero System will come to the game with pattern recognition for 3d6 vs 1d6 vs 1d6+2. I suppose it would apply to games with all d10s or any other die as well, though I don't have enough long-term play with either to say for sure.  (All d10s are often really d100 + d10 using the same dice. A new player doesn't always immediately understand d100, roll under, but it isn't something that takes long to get, and it doesn't get mistaken for anything else once it is understood.)

For me, there is another consideration, that I apparently don't share with most gamers:  I like my complexity front-loaded into character creation whenever possible, not during play. It's because game time is at a premium compared to out of game time--and I don't mind the natural filter this puts on players.  (This is another hidden "feature" of AD&D that often provoked gripes of being a bug.  See also GURPS and Hero System.)  I strongly dislike having to answer the same mechanical questions over and over during play, as it completely destroys the flow of the game.  However, games that go ultra simple for casual play do so at the expense of detail. So how do you get detail into the hands of casuals without overloading them?  You move it to a time when they aren't under pressure, resolve it to something much simpler on their character sheet, and then let them use that.  I don't pretend this doesn't have its own issues, not least of which it put a lower bound on how simple you can make that character sheet.  And it won't appeal to the kind of gamer who really eats up something like B/X, where all the detail is mostly the imagination and deeds of the character in the game.  Still, if you've got players that aren't going to be system wonks but want some of the detail of somewhat more complex games, there's a narrow window in which the design can operate, and this necessarily constrains other aspects, including die mechanics. 

To the extent you want specific details instead of generic (with effects layered on top), the previous point is even more telling.  The intersection of detail with mechanic and ease of use puts a brake on your scale.  Then it's just a matter of deciding how much tweaking to do to try to make the scale work well enough for those parameters.

Quote from: Ruprecht on November 30, 2023, 07:20:50 AM
Funny how we're debating d20 versus the world when there is division in how to use the d20 itself. Black Hack and a few others cling to roll-under but roll-over clearly dominates. D&D uses both but leans heavily on Roll-over.

  I think that's because the concepts of a 'natural 20' and 'critical hit/success' have so thoroughly permeated gamer culture that anything that goes the opposite direction is going to feel 'wrong' to a lot of people.

Also, the d20 is the dice that combines the most results in a single die with availability (except d6s).

I kinda like them.

Quote from: tenbones on November 30, 2023, 03:36:24 AM
I'm wondering what is the attraction to d20 as a system other than familiarity?

---snip---

Guys... Betamax IS technically better than VHS.

Those two items combine show me what you don't get.

While for most technical measures Betamax is better than VHS (although the initial two tapes for many movie problems was one place it was not) for the average person by the mid-80s VHS was infinitely superior to Betamax for one simple reason: you could rent more movies in that format.

For the average consumer the comparison was not "do I rent the inferior picture VHS version of Arthur or the high quality picture version of Arthur" it was "do I get my Dudley Moore comedy fix or pass it up because only the inferior version is available".

I mean, they're renting Arthur, not Romantic Comedy so quality isn't their first issue (Crazy People is still five years out).

You are a serious hobbyist as I am and a lot of people around here.  In that the WOTC people are right, we are not the norm even when the hobby is not a fad.

Let's look at another one of my hobbies, model railroading, for an example. The most popular scale in most of the world is HO and even the UK where OO is more popular the gage of the track is the same.

HO is 1:87.1. What kind of scale ratio is that. It makes sense neither in Imperial or Metric measurements. It replaced O, 1:48 in the US (O gage in the UK is a bit larger for the same reason as OO vs. HO). Meanwhile S scale: 1:64 or 3/8 inch to the inch languishes. TT at 1:120 or 1/10 inch to 1 inch is dead in the US (although being revived in theUK and popular in Eastern Europe).

Why is a weird scale, 1:87.1, that you have to buy special rulers to measure materials to build things, the most popular? Because it was the first scale that could find a sweet spot between being big enough for companies to manufacture items while being small enough for a typical person to have room for a layout.  Once that happened it gained a momentum others couldn't over come. N scale hit in the 60s as manufacturing tech improved but even it hasn't caught HO.

And that mass market affects companies. The entry level cost to S scale (which I'd actually like to model in) is much higher both in money and skill. I can buy a Walthers train set with locomotive, track, cars, and control for $199.99. This is not a toy, but actual modeler level quality items. That is my entry point. Just the locomotive equivalent in S scale is $249.95 at the same store. Some of that is size, but most of it is the tooling has to be amortized over a lot fewer people, probably three or more orders of magnitude fewer.

The same issues apply to RPGs. D&D and its near cousins are familiar. People who've played one can adapt to the others quickly. And note, I said near cousins, a field larger than your D20 definition because I'm including Palladium, Ysgarth, etc while I doubt you are. Plus, there are several orders of magnitude more players in the D20 realm than pretty much any other system. Pick a system and almost any regular player will know D20 if they've been in the hobby more than two years. That's not true of Savage Worlds or GURPS or Cyber or Storyteller/ing/path.  As a producer picking D20 over any of those is adding two or more zeros to my sales numbers.

I know you're about to say you can adapt Savage Worlds on the fly. I know I can't, but I could adapt Cypher on the fly. I figure estar could adapt GURPS on the fly. All of those are learned skills and learning those skills has a cost. Just running each of those is a learned skill. Sure, most DMing skills cross boundaries, but understanding the canon of the rules and their precedents is not and, especially for the DM but for the players as well, is time and energy spent on something other than actually playing the game.

What you need to do to get the OSR off D20 (although I agree with estar that's got a lot of hidden assumptions and missing a lot of others) is to demonstrate that the costs of learning those rules and their precedents will provide enough added enjoyment because they are better that I will recoup in a reasonable time the investment.

tl;dr; Betamax is better than VHS but how long of a wait for the Beta version to finally get realized will the improved picture quality of Betamax support?

Quote from: migo on November 30, 2023, 05:24:12 AM

Quote from: tenbones on November 30, 2023, 03:36:24 AM
When the 80-ton gorilla goes off to cave and seals itself inside, as it's about to do... I'm wondering what is the attraction to d20 as a system other than familiarity?

That's a pretty big advantage, and it will remain for quite some time. If WotC leaves the TTRPG industry entirely, and leaves it open to some other manufacturer, then yeah, we would see over a couple decades something new building up. But for the foreseeable future, something D&D adjacent will have the lowest barrier to adoption.

Maybe, but in 60 years N scale hasn't overtaken HO in the model train world.  Momentum is a powerful thing.

Compatibility doesn't necessarily require one strictly use d20, see attachment, conversion between systems keyed to d20 numbers is still conversion. (these numbers were based largely on 3e since that was the first version to give us ability scores for monsters as a general thing and since D6 is based on ability rolls or skill rolls derived/stacked therefrom. I'd call it osr but i'm a hillbilly with tourettes.

Some variant of d6 mechanics, is a good solution; if you really want to stray away from WOTC.

Quote from: PulpHerb on November 30, 2023, 11:13:01 AM
That's not true of Savage Worlds or GURPS or Cyber or Storyteller/ing/path. 

I found GURPS to be incredibly easy to transition to from AD&D. They just replaced 1d20 with 3d6, with the same 10.5 midpoint. There's no learning curve. The difference now is since 2000 D&D has been roll over, while GURPS is still roll under.

Quote from: PulpHerb on November 30, 2023, 11:19:28 AM

Quote from: migo on November 30, 2023, 05:24:12 AM

Quote from: tenbones on November 30, 2023, 03:36:24 AM
When the 80-ton gorilla goes off to cave and seals itself inside, as it's about to do... I'm wondering what is the attraction to d20 as a system other than familiarity?

That's a pretty big advantage, and it will remain for quite some time. If WotC leaves the TTRPG industry entirely, and leaves it open to some other manufacturer, then yeah, we would see over a couple decades something new building up. But for the foreseeable future, something D&D adjacent will have the lowest barrier to adoption.

Maybe, but in 60 years N scale hasn't overtaken HO in the model train world.  Momentum is a powerful thing.

So is marketing. And getting the same thing at a different scale isn't the same as getting a quite different tool. The TI-83 is probably the standard graphing calculator, and Casio isn't going to take over making the same thing at 87% of the size. But they might by offering new functionality that is very useful to people.

The big advantage of D20 is that it's easy to design for. It has a linear distribution where each step creates an equal, exactly 5% increment to your chance of success, so you can design a D20 game with very little advanced game design knowledge and it'll work.

This means that the world is flooded with D20 content.

Of course, in a post-5E universe, all this goes out the window. The D&D Advantage mechanic works by squaring the probability of failure (your chance of success is always a number between 0 and 1, and when you square a non-negative number smaller than 1, you get an even smaller number, so squaring the chance of failure increases your chance of success.)

You'll note this is an exponential mechanic, not a linear one.

The future of RPG game design is logarithmic and exponential, not linear. This suits players well because most of your senses and intuitions secretly work on logarithmic scales, and logarithmic scales handle extreme power disparities much better than linear ones. If you think that RPG mechanics don't scale well, that's because the linear systems descended from games in the 70s to 2010s don't; we have been banging up against the limits of linear game design for some time. However, this is also the death of the complete amateur game designer. Logarithmic and exponential game design is no longer stuff any old highschool graduate can do in their heads.

That's funny that you mention this... as my nascent "house system" I'm working on is exactly this. Logarithmic scaling for the purposes of heavy lifting for a variety of genres.

The settings will dictate those genre parameters specific for the rules.

(sorry I'm short on replies, been super busy - you guys made a lot of good posts I wanna respond to: Steve, Pulp, and migo specifically). I'll get back here asap.

Quote from: jhkim on November 28, 2023, 05:44:34 PM
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.

Savage World Pathfinder does actually borrow some Pathfinderesque mechanics, which are D&D-isms.  A big example is, it has a rough equivalent of classes from its Edges.  As someone who won't touch a classless system, that's a pretty big deal, and that's purely mechanical.

Quote from: tenbones on December 04, 2023, 01:48:01 PM
That's funny that you mention this... as my nascent "house system" I'm working on is exactly this. Logarithmic scaling for the purposes of heavy lifting for a variety of genres.

The settings will dictate those genre parameters specific for the rules.

(sorry I'm short on replies, been super busy - you guys made a lot of good posts I wanna respond to: Steve, Pulp, and migo specifically). I'll get back here asap.

Not to be pedantic, but are you sure you mean logarithmic?

Logarithmic growth increases rapidly at the low end, but then slows towards (but never quite reaches) 0 the higher it goes... i.e. there's a bigger difference between 1 and 2 than there is between 2 and 3.

In a logarithmic growth a stat of 2 might be twice that of 1, but a stat of 10 might only be 1% greater than a 9. That seams less than useful.

By contrast, for handling large scales I'd think you'd want an exponential curve where it starts slow (the difference between 1 and 2 might be 10%) but then increase towards infinite (a 10 might be 100 times the value of a 9).

Or alternately just a straight doubling (2 is twice 1, 3 is twice 2, etc.).

Quote from: Chris24601 on December 05, 2023, 01:37:10 PM

Quote from: tenbones on December 04, 2023, 01:48:01 PM
That's funny that you mention this... as my nascent "house system" I'm working on is exactly this. Logarithmic scaling for the purposes of heavy lifting for a variety of genres.

The settings will dictate those genre parameters specific for the rules.

(sorry I'm short on replies, been super busy - you guys made a lot of good posts I wanna respond to: Steve, Pulp, and migo specifically). I'll get back here asap.

Not to be pedantic, but are you sure you mean logarithmic?

Logarithmic growth increases rapidly at the low end, but then slows towards (but never quite reaches) 0 the higher it goes... i.e. there's a bigger difference between 1 and 2 than there is between 2 and 3.

In a logarithmic growth a stat of 2 might be twice that of 1, but a stat of 10 might only be 1% greater than a 9. That seams less than useful.

By contrast, for handling large scales I'd think you'd want an exponential curve where it starts slow (the difference between 1 and 2 might be 10%) but then increase towards infinite (a 10 might be 100 times the value of a 9).

Or alternately just a straight doubling (2 is twice 1, 3 is twice 2, etc.).

Not tenbones, but I did introduce the word "logarithmic" to this conversation.

There's more to RPGs than character advancement, but it's worth noting that classic Skinner Box advancement is, in fact, logarithmic exactly as you described. It's just that instead of decreasing the amount you improve when you level up (which would feel bad to most players and most systems don't do particularly well) the system itself slows how quickly the player character improves. This is verbatim why most RPG systems with character advancement have you level up at a slowly decreasing rate.

But the real kicker IMO is setting check difficulty, because difficulty tends to work better if it is logarithmic, especially for bell curve systems.

At the end of the day, I think that the exponential vs logarithmic discussion is an interesting application of relative viewpoints. Most of the time RPGs have two subsystems interfacing onto a single mechanic. The core mechanic is usually a dice mechanic set opposite to a difficulty setting mechanic. As such, whether or not you describe a mechanic as exponential or linear can become a point of view issue. The mathematical formulae are inverses, so if you are looking at the difficulty mechanic from the point of view of the dice mechanic, it's logarithmic. If you are looking at the die mechanic from the point of view of the difficulty mechanic, it's exponential.

I tend to use the word logarithmic to describe this because the die mechanic tends to not change much, but the GM is constantly changing the difficulty. The GM will constantly need to look from the dice mechanic and solve for difficulty, so the logarithmic function is  more relevant to the game.

That said, I don't think that the RPG scene is developed enough that most of this math stuff matters beyond raw concepts. At least not yet, and perhaps not ever. I have never actually solved a log function to set a difficulty mechanic because precision just isn't that important for RPGs and game feel is. However, if you don't understand the rough shapes of these functions, the mechanics are quite likely to fail when actually put to high level play.

I've thought this exact line of reasoning myself.  Does OGL have to be based on D&D style rules? 

My thinking it does.  Yes, it very much does. 

Specifically, the classic six attributes of Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wiz, & Cha (usually these are BS as it is the modifier a high or low attribute is what REALLY matters, but that's another argument), armor class, and ever increasing hit points as you level.  After that it's just a variation on how leveling up works. 

D&D copycats is another term we can use.  Or D&D heartbreaker, since it breaks your heart you wrote a better game, and nobody even knows it exists, let alone buys it.  One of my favorite OSR games, Olde Swords Reign, is a heartbreaker.  It used to be owned by the original writer and sold for decent price tag, but the heartbreak set in.  Now it's owned by the guy's friend and playtester who gives it away for free. 

I would also argue that another favorite of mine is somewhat like the OP commented.  I consider Dungeons & Delvers Dice Pool Edition to be an OSR game.  It's got the same races, classes, and uses armor class to hit people.  But.  And it's a big, Kardashian sized but, it doesn't use the d20.  It's replaced the attributes and skills with dice sizes.  Weakest is a D4, best is the D12.  Roll one for an attribute, one for a skill, and probably a few more because of race and class talents, pick the best two, and that's your dice roll. 

I love it as it fixes most of what I don't like about D&D, such as rolling a "bad" character is impossible, hit points don't inflate out of control, and classes, especially fighting types are just as customizable as a wizard. 

Quote from: PulpHerb on November 30, 2023, 11:13:01 AM
...
HO is 1:87.1. What kind of scale ratio is that. It makes sense neither in Imperial or Metric measurements. It replaced O, 1:48 in the US (O gage in the UK is a bit larger for the same reason as OO vs. HO). Meanwhile S scale: 1:64 or 3/8 inch to the inch languishes. TT at 1:120 or 1/10 inch to 1 inch is dead in the US (although being revived in the UK and popular in Eastern Europe).

Looks over at all my new Tillig TT stuff...

Liar! My single anecdotal experience says modeling European TT in the US is alive and healthy!!!

LOL no; it's dead – I'm a lone voice in the wilderness on this one...

Tillig or Piko will need start making US prototypes if TT is going to get any traction here. Because US model rail roaders in general are tied to an 'Operations Uber Alles' mindset that is very different from the European side of the hobby. I've seen abject refusal to model anything but US trains...

Oh, and yeah, HO is the biggest because it established massive market share earliest.

Quote from: tenbones on November 30, 2023, 03:36:24 AM
...I'm wondering what is the attraction to d20 as a system other than familiarity?

It's not just familiarity. Along with that familiarity comes a massive network effect.

With the exception of the 4e debacle, D&D has ridden a "good enough" system to massive success due to that familiarity/network effect.

Quote from: tenbones on November 30, 2023, 03:36:24 AM
While I confess I do possess the strain of hubris that believes I can make a better d20 mousetrap... I always feel this energy could/should take it into better abstractions that make it qualitatively less d20. There is *definitely* a sweet spot where d20 sings, no question.

I suspect the following: I like running big big sweeping sandbox campaigns, where PC's start wherever we decide (normal people, exceptional people, whatever) but I want them to have unlimited scaling potential to grow within the constraints of the setting, *not* the rules. d20 *really* starts to strain post 10th level. Which is FINE. There is scant support for GM's to learn how to run games post-10th, much less on a chassis that was never intended to go beyond 10th. But I maintain it *could* if it were re-designed correctly.
...

I have always wondered why no one has designed for that lvl3-8 "sweet spot" and just extend it over 20 levels...  But, no the  "level based system must go from zero to superhero." paradigm continues to dominate unchallenged.

The Basic d20 system is really just Stat Mod + Skill or attack mod + d20. Which is No different from most skill based games...

In my opinion: There is a big design space for fixed HP d20 games:

Six ability scores, -5 to +5
HP - fixed.
Saves
Skill list: 1-8 scores
AC =  Ac could be divided like Conan d20 into Defense and Evasion. Damage reduction for armor could be introduced as well like in the d20 Conan RPG.

Bam, done: You have a "d20" RPG that functions like any other skill-based game. "Level" is just an advancement method – or even just get rid of levels and have the PC's buy advances with XP, like any other skill based system.

You could virtually recreate games like CP2020 with such a scheme relatively easily. And it would still be largely d20/5e "compatible"... i.e. familiar enough that it does not seem like a "new" system to players coming from D&D.


Once OSR/d20 designers break themselves of the "HP must go up with level" mindset that they all seem to be locked into; a whole new d20 design paradigm will open up.

But I'm not holding my breath on this one. For some reason the OSR/d20 design sphere seems locked into the "HP must go up with level." it must. No exceptions. Like, Ever.

Quote from: Jaeger on December 07, 2023, 08:15:34 PM
I have always wondered why no one has designed for that lvl3-8 "sweet spot" and just extend it over 20 levels...  But, no the  "level based system must go from zero to superhero." paradigm continues to dominate unchallenged.
...

Once OSR/d20 designers break themselves of the "HP must go up with level" mindset that they all seem to be locked into; a whole new d20 design paradigm will open up.

But I'm not holding my breath on this one. For some reason the OSR/d20 design sphere seems locked into the "HP must go up with level." it must. No exceptions. Like, Ever.

Because that's not as popular as the other way.  That's why I built my own--I never seem to fully enjoy the more popular options.  Though in fairness, I'm not really in the OSR sphere, either.

My own system is built around something very close to what you are saying here.  I've got 24 levels, and levels from about 4-17 are in the sweet spot.  So not exactly your idea, but a lot closer to it than most d20 games.  My equivalent of hit points are much scaled back, and don't go up every level (or only go up a point or two on some levels).   Though my levels 1-3 are introductory, and the higher ones are just to handle a few edge cases.  The intent is that people wanting sweet spot just start at level 4 and go.

The other thing though, is you can't just do the "ability mods from -5 to +5" thing and make a few other changes to really make that work.  The whole game needs to be designed around the plan of the bulk of the game is incremental advancement in the sweet spot. 

The problem with true skills-based games is that there are no "gated" abilities other than what the skill costs put on them.  Or what the group agrees to do or GM imposes, of course. The problem with class-based games is being locked into a silo.  Tacking skills onto classes has its own set of problems.  What I'm trying (jury still out if it works well or not) is to build a mostly skills-based game that only uses its classes for some limited gating and to handle the advancement sequence.

There's nothing inherently wrong with having a d20 mechanic and building a game around that.  There are a lot of bad ways to do things, and WotC has managed to explore quite a few of them.   

Quote from: weirdguy564 on December 06, 2023, 07:48:53 PM
Does OGL have to be based on D&D style rules? 

OGL, the Open Gaming License, cover a lot more than just the d20 system.  One very notable system that is covered under the OGL 1.0a is West End Games D6 system of Star Wars RPG fame.

If you mean OSR, then the above doesn't apply but I still disagree.  However, in order for it to be OSR it would need to be backward compatible to the old TSR D&D.  If you're making a new rules set (you can) then you should still be able to use all the modules without any conversion.  If you're making a module, then you should be able to run it with AD&D 1e or BECMI.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on December 06, 2023, 07:48:53 PM
I've thought this exact line of reasoning myself.  Does OGL have to be based on D&D style rules? 

My thinking it does.  Yes, it very much does. 

This has already been answered over a decade ago. It does not. FATE, for instance, is OGL.