One of the neat things about this article series is that it identifies kinds mechanics that make OSR games feel like OSR games

• Strength is Better for Combat (in most cases) than Dexterity --> a sword and sorcery feel
• Ranged attacks are frequently dangerous or not available --> combat is dangerous
• Spells available to casters are more randomly distributed --> spells are less technology-like, casters are more varied

I would also add

• Attribute bonuses and penalties have a smaller range of values -> people are more accepting/functional w/ random score generation, more of a "you were just a "regular guy" before adventuring

What would you add?

Quote from: PencilBoy99;835678

• Attribute bonuses and penalties have a smaller range of values -> people are more accepting/functional w/ random score generation, more of a "you were just a "regular guy" before adventuring

You can't get much more OSR than Greyhawk (1st OD&D supplement, introducing the thief) which gives STR a bonus of up to +4 to hit, +6 damage! Dex of 18 gives you +4 or +5 to AC (I can't work out which it means).

Hmm... Misremembered that one!

Honestly, I don't think there is anything that is or isn't OSR. Almost all game mechanics that showed up even in the modern era were done in the 1970s (or at least, 1980s), at least until you got to that narrative stuff.

I also don't think strength being better in combat necessarily fits sword & sorcery. Conan, sure, but what about the Grey Mouser? What about Elak of Atlantis? Both were not overly large or strong men who preferred to use rapiers. (see http://www.swordandsorcery.org/swordsmen-elak.asp for some depictions of Elak)

Quote from: JoeNuttall;835714You can't get much more OSR than Greyhawk (1st OD&D supplement, introducing the thief) which gives STR a bonus of up to +4 to hit, +6 damage! Dex of 18 gives you +4 or +5 to AC (I can't work out which it means).

Ah, but you are wrong (in saying you can't get more OSR than Greyhawk, your other point is correct). It seems like the much of the OSR movement (the vocal part) is based on the idea that the game (and roleplaying in general) went wrong with the introduction of Greyhawk. That "White Box" is the only true roleplaying.

Also, I think there was a rather high mortality rate of low ability score characters. While I think the whole idea of DCC's funnel is somewhat overblown, there is some truth into people having a lot of characters to start with, and the tougher ones surviving and continued to get played.

I think trying to get rid of that character churn was one of the motivations for the 4d6 in AD&D and the wider bonuses in B/X

The better question is why are people so obsessed with classifying component parts of rpgs instead of just playing them?

No one can even come up with a good definition of "OSR", so good luck.

Quote from: Brad;835733The better question is why are people so obsessed with classifying component parts of rpgs instead of just playing them?

No one can even come up with a good definition of "OSR", so good luck.

I wonder sometimes. Why should I give a squirt if a game meets certain criteria as long as it's fun and I like playing it? "Oh my god, it doesn't have armor make you harder to hit and there are no level names, it's not TRUE OSR!"

Quote from: JeremyR;835730Ah, but you are wrong (in saying you can't get more OSR than Greyhawk, your other point is correct).

Err... that's obviously why I said: "You can't get much more OSR than Greyhawk". You could go with white box (as I'm doing myself in one campaign!) or even use Chainmail combat, or try and recreate Arneson style D&D!

Quote from: JeremyR;835730Almost all game mechanics that showed up even in the modern era were done in the 1970s (or at least, 1980s), at least until you got to that narrative stuff.

Agreed. I even played freeform diceless in the late 1980s (I know that, 'cos it was before I started dating my wife!).

Quote from: PencilBoy99;835678One of the neat things about this article series is that it identifies kinds mechanics that make OSR games feel like OSR games

• Strength is Better for Combat (in most cases) than Dexterity --> a sword and sorcery feel

And I would point out that the Mouser, Solomon Kane and frigging Conan would disagree with this. Not a single one of them fights with brute strength without dexterity, and at least the Mouser is explicitly relying on the speed of his blade and proud with said speed:).
Conan has iron thews, true, but he's also got more speed and stamina, not to mention panther-like reflexes and coordination, that "civilised" men just cannot compete with (and to be fair, neither can Picts). Governor Arnold just isn't a good representation of the S&S type;). Jack Dempsey is, on the other hand, almost perfect.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;835678

• Ranged attacks are frequently dangerous or not available --> combat is dangerous

Do you mean ranged combat isn't dangerous:D?
And I mean combat, not shooting at targets that lack missile weapons. That's murder, not combat.

Quote from: JeremyR;835730Honestly, I don't think there is anything that is or isn't OSR. Almost all game mechanics that showed up even in the modern era were done in the 1970s (or at least, 1980s), at least until you got to that narrative stuff.

I concur. In fact, some narrative stuff showed up pretty early in the 70ies. It's called "hit points"!
Seriously, Old Geezer has explained repeatedly that hit points were meant to emulate the pacing of Erol Flynn-like duels, and represent nothing in the game world. That's almost the definition of a narrative mechanic:D! We're just used to them, so they don't seem narrative.

Personally, I think the hallmark of OSR games is the permission to try anything. If you think it would work, go for it. That includes improvising in combat.
The other thing that stands out, to me, is using lots of hirelings whenever they're available;).

For me, old school play doesn't have any set mechanics or formulas that are required for play. Instead, there are some guiding principles that I feel give an old school vibe to a game.

1) Players are more important than characters.

The people gathered together to play a game for mutual entertainment are vastly more important than the scribbles on a character sheet or notebook paper. This means that the player matters. Good play is the key to survival, not what numbers are on your sheet.

2) Character life is cheap

Even with good play, adventuring is dangerous and most adventurers die before achieving the wealth and fame that they so long to have. It happens. Get over it and roll up a fresh character.

3) The fictional situation rules.

Use whatever mechanics make for the best game play at your table. Think about what is happening in the game world and that affects the rules instead of the other way around.  Never allow rote procedure to overrule common sense.

4) The rules serve the game.

Always. If a rule is infringing on the fun of the group as a whole, punt it and use something else. Old school playing means being willing to improvise to get what you want.

5) Your story can take a hike.

Actual play and what happens at the table are what matters. It is a game to be played, not a novel to be played out. Roll with the unexpected twists and turns. They will often pleasantly surprise you.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;835929Instead, there are some guiding principles that I feel give an old school vibe to a game.

1) Players are more important than characters.
2) Character life is cheap
3) The fictional situation rules.
4) The rules serve the game.
5) Your story can take a hike.

That's a fantastic set of values, distilling a playing style down into an attitude. The other day I wrote up a similar list - a Manifesto for what you get if you elect me to be your DM - and the differences are quite illuminating.

I agree with all 4 except the "character life is cheap", which is something my players won't accept, and I think was probably already going by the time AD&D came out (and that's OSRIC so almost by definition that's OSR).

I'd thought of starting a thread along these lines - what's your RPG manifesto - but perhaps I'm too much of a new boy to be doing that!

Quote from: JoeNuttall;835963That's a fantastic set of values, distilling a playing style down into an attitude. The other day I wrote up a similar list - a Manifesto for what you get if you elect me to be your DM - and the differences are quite illuminating.

I agree with all 4 except the "character life is cheap", which is something my players won't accept, and I think was probably already going by the time AD&D came out (and that's OSRIC so almost by definition that's OSR).

I'd thought of starting a thread along these lines - what's your RPG manifesto - but perhaps I'm too much of a new boy to be doing that!

I don't have an overall rpg manifesto. There are many types of games and styles of play.

The values I outlined are simply what I think is important for an old school feel. Not every rpg fits with old school values so I don't consider them universal to roleplaying in general.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;836062I don't have an overall rpg manifesto. There are many types of games and styles of play.

The values I outlined are simply what I think is important for an old school feel. Not every rpg fits with old school values so I don't consider them universal to roleplaying in general.

Do you mean they're not universal to everyone's roleplaying, or that none of those rules are universal to the games you play, or that only some of those rules are universal to the games you play?

In any roleplaying I'd be interested in playing nowadays "the rules serve the game" would be a mantra I'd live by. I'm not interested in sticking with the rules regardless. But many people are, they're interested in playing the rules as written. I don't mind that people play games that way, but it's not for me. Similarly "the fictional situation rules" is a line in the sand for me, yet for story games there's obviously an entirely different agenda.

Quote from: JoeNuttall;836070Do you mean they're not universal to everyone's roleplaying, or that none of those rules are universal to the games you play, or that only some of those rules are universal to the games you play?

In any roleplaying I'd be interested in playing nowadays "the rules serve the game" would be a mantra I'd live by. I'm not interested in sticking with the rules regardless. But many people are, they're interested in playing the rules as written. I don't mind that people play games that way, but it's not for me. Similarly "the fictional situation rules" is a line in the sand for me, yet for story games there's obviously an entirely different agenda.

I largely prefer games in the old school style. I will participate in more story oriented games so long as they look like fun and are advertised as such.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;836071I largely prefer games in the old school style. I will participate in more story oriented games so long as they look like fun and are advertised as such.

Does that mean that "none of those rules are universal to the games you play"?

Quote from: JoeNuttall;836074Does that mean that "none of those rules are universal to the games you play"?

#1,3, and 4 are staples for me and it would be a rare game indeed that would go against these that I would find interesting enough to want to play.