Pundit's video on Shadowdark tourism (the promotion of Shadowdark as some special 5e alternative - in lieu of the entirety of the rest of the OSR that has been established for years) got me thinking.

Effectively what I want to do is replace AC, HP, with a Wound track and re-itemization. I started with this crazy notion of making an OSR-inspired flavor of Savage Worlds (which is easy to do). Then I started thinking of doing a Savage Worlds inspired version of OSR d20 rules. Keep classes, progression (with changes necessary only to combat-task resolution due to the shift of AC and HP not being a thing), but otherwise keep it d20 focused including a simple conversion table.

Is this too far for OSR?

Primary differences: Deathspiral mechanics (Wounds produce penalties), Niche protection for Fighters because "AC" is based on To Hit bonuses. This produces a potentially more kinetic and faster game, as there is no HP-sponge effects. Better scaling "high level" number bloat can be mitigated easier since the numbers are kept smaller and more manageable. Spellcasting requires a skill check.

Obviously there are particulars that need to stick the landing. Or am I going into no-no land for OSR "purists"?

I'm definitely NOT an OSR purist by any means though I appreciate some of the design concepts/asthetics/goals of the movement but just not the execution personally.  That said... what benefit does attaching the OSR label give your clearly very different game that would potentially counteract the incessant whinging from the "purists" you're worried about?   No sarcasm as I'm genuinely trying to see the benefit as opposed to just calling it a more broad term like "old school" that might not carry the weight/burden of the unofficial official label.

I think a solid test/threshold we could devise is "Can this play Keep On the Borderlands out of the box without need of conversion?" with the exception of ascending/descending AC.  I think most sane people would consider that good litmus test.

I am one to believe under that rule you could do a lot! I had a blog article in the works on designing a White Wolf style wound track that is measured off of Hit Dice, so HD is your wound track modified by creature size ( and possibly CON modifier)

The key is keeping HD and the number values, but contextualizing them.

Quote from: RNGm on April 16, 2025, 01:10:56 PMI'm definitely NOT an OSR purist by any means though I appreciate some of the design concepts/asthetics/goals of the movement but just not the execution personally.  That said... what benefit does attaching the OSR label give your clearly very different game that would potentially counteract the incessant whinging from the "purists" you're worried about?   No sarcasm as I'm genuinely trying to see the benefit as opposed to just calling it a more broad term like "old school" that might not carry the weight/burden of the unofficial official label.

Because I can't deny the fact of the matter: these are OSR inspired mechanics as the base in terms of mechanical aesthetics. There are elements of the OSR I do wish to engage with, but only from the perspective of not doing it for its own sake.

Think of it like this - each popular game system is its own germ-line. D20 is the oldest, we all know it's strengths and weaknesses and debate about them all the time. OSR has tried to define itself along a certain path... and frankly, whether I want to admit it or not, within the constraints of d20, I'm *far* more OSR in my personal aesthetic towards gaming writ-large than I will ever be with d20 post-2e.

The issue of me is this is sort of an honest take for myself, to rejoin the stream I left long ago, and see what I can do it with design-wise to satisfy myself. It would be easy for me to do a 1e/2e retroclone... but why limit myself there, since there are things I would change in those. For me, "OSR" begins at the source - Basic. My design goal is simply to build up from there with the fewest changes that satisfy my needs.

It's a tricky needle to thread.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 16, 2025, 01:20:12 PMI think a solid test/threshold we could devise is "Can this play Keep On the Borderlands out of the box without need of conversion?" with the exception of ascending/descending AC.  I think most sane people would consider that good litmus test.

I am one to believe under that rule you could do a lot! I had a blog article in the works on designing a White Wolf style wound track that is measured off of Hit Dice, so HD is your wound track modified by creature size ( and possibly CON modifier)

The key is keeping HD and the number values, but contextualizing them.

Yeah this is very good advice. My goal is to keep it simple:

Base Wounds of 2 + Con modifiers. HD options for extra Wounds will be class-specific. Since I'm going to be using levels, some classes will have a larger track than others. Class abilities will factor into this as part of progression.

Size will also be a factor.

I considered using HD as a one-to-one but in considering the Parry/Armor rules, I think the HD/Wound couplet would feel bloaty. Unlike D&D where you're chewing through tons of HP, in this system, much of the damage is going to be ablated and superficial until it isn't. This keeps the number-values low (i.e. small but deadly Wound-track) and it puts the onus of calculation in combat directly on the task resolution of Hit>Damage>Effect/No Effect

Keeping all the "traditional" d20 dice values is another important design conceit. Though they might be more simplified. I'm also wanting to keep it *chunky* in terms of level progression. I'm looking at only 10-levels. The natural scaling potential with To Hit and AR (Armor Rating) being tied to derived stats, keeps bookeeping low on the front-end, but deep on the back-end.

So a Fighter that's 5th level might have abilities that give them several options to increase their +To Hit (Stats, Gear, Proficiencies, Class abilities) but the To Hit Value is the primary stat used for several functions including how hard it is to be hit. In play this will feel *much* stronger than non-Fighters, who will have other emergent options - Thieves will get bonuses that reinforce their abilities in combat, while casters will... well they shouldn't *be* in melee, which will reinforce the "glass-cannon" conceit of casters.

But your point is VERY well taken. I absolutely want on-the-fly conversion so you can take nearly any D&D product and just roll with easy to eyeball conversion.

I've said this before.  I think that in isolation, there are very few things that cannot be changed, lest every OSR fan be driven off.  You'll always lose a few with any change, as is expected.  "Just like B/X except with armor reducing damage instead of setting AC" is certainly possible in my mind, for example.

It is in the number of changes, the severity of those changes, and how well the changes still fit the spirit of the original idea--that's where the line will be drawn. A simple armor reduction scheme that is easy and fast to use at the table beats a more complex scheme that seems to align more closely to the internal math of the source material.

As to exactly how it will play out, I'm also interested, though perhaps too far outside the OSR to have an informed take.

Finally, there is the whole compatibility piece, which again I'm probably too biased to answer well.  I'll always prefer "substitution" compatibility over mechanical conversion.  That is, even if your goblin/+1 sword/sleep spell analogs work completely differently, maybe even different names (e.g. lesser sword instead of +1 sword), if I can wholesale substitute from an existing OSR adventure and get roughly the same kind of effects, I'm happy.  I'm not happy if I need to do a lot of math on the fly every time, though I wouldn't mind a section on conversion for those cases where the analog isn't already built.  Whereas I get the impression for most OSR fans that being able to mentally convert on the fly even without pre-built analogs is kind of necessary to qualify as compatible.

Quote from: tenbones on April 16, 2025, 02:50:18 PMYeah this is very good advice. My goal is to keep it simple:

Base Wounds of 2 + Con modifiers. HD options for extra Wounds will be class-specific. Since I'm going to be using levels, some classes will have a larger track than others. Class abilities will factor into this as part of progression.

Size will also be a factor.

I considered using HD as a one-to-one but in considering the Parry/Armor rules, I think the HD/Wound couplet would feel bloaty. Unlike D&D where you're chewing through tons of HP, in this system, much of the damage is going to be ablated and superficial until it isn't. This keeps the number-values low (i.e. small but deadly Wound-track) and it puts the onus of calculation in combat directly on the task resolution of Hit>Damage>Effect/No Effect

Keeping all the "traditional" d20 dice values is another important design conceit. Though they might be more simplified. I'm also wanting to keep it *chunky* in terms of level progression. I'm looking at only 10-levels. The natural scaling potential with To Hit and AR (Armor Rating) being tied to derived stats, keeps bookeeping low on the front-end, but deep on the back-end.

So a Fighter that's 5th level might have abilities that give them several options to increase their +To Hit (Stats, Gear, Proficiencies, Class abilities) but the To Hit Value is the primary stat used for several functions including how hard it is to be hit. In play this will feel *much* stronger than non-Fighters, who will have other emergent options - Thieves will get bonuses that reinforce their abilities in combat, while casters will... well they shouldn't *be* in melee, which will reinforce the "glass-cannon" conceit of casters.

But your point is VERY well taken. I absolutely want on-the-fly conversion so you can take nearly any D&D product and just roll with easy to eyeball conversion.

Slightly unrelated but reminded me, I was recently in a playtest oneshot for a game (I'm not remembering the name off the top of my head) but it was a hack of Chaos Reigns (Which is streamlined Chainmail combat system to use in OD&D) they did something kind of funky/interesting where HD/Level acted as your To Hit bonus for fighters _(1/2 for every other class, 1/4 for Wizards) but if you did a number of damage over the creatures level/Hit Dice it Gibbed them which let you get a free extra attack that turn, and the roll over damage applied to the next target.

Made combat very snappy, but also very death spiraled.

Another0 thought regarding this: Look at Mutants & Masterminds 3rd edition and how they handled wounds, basically, getting killed/knocked out was dependent on failing by a certain degree on a "Toughness check" attacking was determined by the attacker, but damage was something like 10 + the attack's damage, the defender used their toughness score (which is like if CON and HD were the same thing) and had to beat that value, depending on how much they failed by it inflicted wounds, wounds gave cumulative penalties to following defense roll.

failing by four degrees meant you died (each degree being -/+ 5) it was a pretty interesting system and really made fights interesting.

Let me share my grognard-but-not-OSR-grognard opinion.

The core mechanic is my favorite part of Savage Worlds, and while I think Wounds and Toughness are OK, the Death Spiral is my least favorite part of what I otherwise view as an excellent system. Oh, and the Shaken rules arguably are the worst part of the system. The D20 itself is my least favorite part of the OSR design paradigm because it is so bland.

I can see what you want from this RPG system kitbash, but I think you're choosing to start with some of the weakest parts of these systems. I get that there's less work to do when you start with these parts, but I (personally) don't like this roster of system parts. Is this really the best possible choice?

If I were to attempt something similar, I would be much more interested in a supplement which lets a group replace the vanilla D20 rolls native to an OSR game with a variation of the Savage Worlds core mechanic, so I would probably focus on making a Savage Worlds core variant which is upshifted into the number range a D20 system can interpret. Because if the entire party is looking to use this system simultaneously, it probably doesn't need to be a perfect compatibility layer. It just has to get close enough.

You're an adult, you do what you want. I am of the very firm position that the OSR is about actual play, and if you do something that makes the game better, you're right. Adhering to some nebulous ideology to conform to an undefined style of gaming is just a waste of time. If it works in play, you are right.

Quote from: Brad on April 16, 2025, 10:30:03 PMYou're an adult, you do what you want. I am of the very firm position that the OSR is about actual play, and if you do something that makes the game better, you're right. Adhering to some nebulous ideology to conform to an undefined style of gaming is just a waste of time. If it works in play, you are right.

This. Some consider OpenQuest OSR because it is similar to RQ2. Traveller and Tunnels and Trolls were considered fair game for TARGA because it was an older style of play, that was the original point. And as Brad said, do what YOU want to and make what YOU want to see made, that is the beauty of a DIY community.

Yes there is very little new in Shadowdark. The torch timer people talk about is new but to me that is also stupid.

To me the games real strength is that everything is cleaned up and designed for usability. I also like the art style. In a nutshell it's the opposite of Mork Borg.

I get eye strain (quite literally with Cy-borg and exaggerating/figuratively with the rest) when looking at the MorkBorg-o-sphere books.   I much rather have cleaned up and coherent art style personally.

Quote from: bat on April 16, 2025, 11:30:32 PM

Quote from: Brad on April 16, 2025, 10:30:03 PMYou're an adult, you do what you want. I am of the very firm position that the OSR is about actual play, and if you do something that makes the game better, you're right. Adhering to some nebulous ideology to conform to an undefined style of gaming is just a waste of time. If it works in play, you are right.

This. Some consider OpenQuest OSR because it is similar to RQ2. Traveller and Tunnels and Trolls were considered fair game for TARGA because it was an older style of play, that was the original point. And as Brad said, do what YOU want to and make what YOU want to see made, that is the beauty of a DIY community.

Yes, I'm very much in that Runequest boat, and I was surprised when some people did not include it in "old school".

Also, I do see some charm in old school games and capturing some of that old magic that may have been lost at times when the hobby went through different trendy "attitudes". But also there's absolutely no reason to be dogmatic about it. Rolemaster is also pretty old school in some ways but pretty far off from what most people consider OSR.

Quote from: Trond on April 17, 2025, 04:33:58 PM

Quote from: bat on April 16, 2025, 11:30:32 PM

Quote from: Brad on April 16, 2025, 10:30:03 PMYou're an adult, you do what you want. I am of the very firm position that the OSR is about actual play, and if you do something that makes the game better, you're right. Adhering to some nebulous ideology to conform to an undefined style of gaming is just a waste of time. If it works in play, you are right.

This. Some consider OpenQuest OSR because it is similar to RQ2. Traveller and Tunnels and Trolls were considered fair game for TARGA because it was an older style of play, that was the original point. And as Brad said, do what YOU want to and make what YOU want to see made, that is the beauty of a DIY community.

Yes, I'm very much in that Runequest boat, and I was surprised when some people did not include it in "old school".

Also, I do see some charm in old school games and capturing some of that old magic that may have been lost at times when the hobby went through different trendy "attitudes". But also there's absolutely no reason to be dogmatic about it. Rolemaster is also pretty old school in some ways but pretty far off from what most people consider OSR.

In the beginning of TARGA, a small group among many for decades (the only difference, I believe, was the drive, there was a lot of motivation in TARGA), the idea was to get people playing older games and not just talking about them. When TARGA split the term 'OSR' soon followed and things branched out from there. So yes, RoleMaster, TandT, RQ, Traveller, were all initially supported, yet, as more and more people are exposed to a new thing it simplifies and thus most people now see the OSR as TSR era D&D. That is their choice, yet it leaves a lot of great games out.

Quote from: bat on April 18, 2025, 10:54:35 AM

Quote from: Trond on April 17, 2025, 04:33:58 PM

Quote from: bat on April 16, 2025, 11:30:32 PM

Quote from: Brad on April 16, 2025, 10:30:03 PMYou're an adult, you do what you want. I am of the very firm position that the OSR is about actual play, and if you do something that makes the game better, you're right. Adhering to some nebulous ideology to conform to an undefined style of gaming is just a waste of time. If it works in play, you are right.

This. Some consider OpenQuest OSR because it is similar to RQ2. Traveller and Tunnels and Trolls were considered fair game for TARGA because it was an older style of play, that was the original point. And as Brad said, do what YOU want to and make what YOU want to see made, that is the beauty of a DIY community.

Yes, I'm very much in that Runequest boat, and I was surprised when some people did not include it in "old school".

Also, I do see some charm in old school games and capturing some of that old magic that may have been lost at times when the hobby went through different trendy "attitudes". But also there's absolutely no reason to be dogmatic about it. Rolemaster is also pretty old school in some ways but pretty far off from what most people consider OSR.

In the beginning of TARGA, a small group among many for decades (the only difference, I believe, was the drive, there was a lot of motivation in TARGA), the idea was to get people playing older games and not just talking about them. When TARGA split the term 'OSR' soon followed and things branched out from there. So yes, RoleMaster, TandT, RQ, Traveller, were all initially supported, yet, as more and more people are exposed to a new thing it simplifies and thus most people now see the OSR as TSR era D&D. That is their choice, yet it leaves a lot of great games out.

I guess I'm in that TARGA boat to a certain degree. 😊