Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 28, 2024, 11:40:56 AM

Quote from: Brad on May 28, 2024, 09:07:12 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 27, 2024, 08:16:35 PMYou both are wrong, the OSR started as retroclones of the D&D editions you couldn't buy. So much so those were the first retroclones and the logo was designed to mimic TSR's.

Key word bolded. OSR games started as an exercise to duplicate old TSR rules-sets in order to publish AD&D modules. They used the OGL to do so. People eventually figured out the OGL could also be finessed to make all sorts of retroclones based on Traveller, FACERIP, TFT, etc. TLG made C&C as essentially an AD&D-ified 3rd edition D&D; it counted as OSR. After a while, the OSR morphed to essentially mean TSR-based games, with B/X being the largest group of these; I'd say 90% of OSR products look more like B/X than anything else TSR ever made. C&C no longer counts as OSR, in my opinion, using this definition.

If we extend the "there were two OSRs" to cover what actually happened, then sure, it means two different things depending on who you ask. But, I was there Gandalf. I was there three thousand years ago. I remember.

So you agree that both of you were wrong, since both of you were saying the opposite, that the OSR DIDN'T start as Totally-NotD&D.

Then, latter people started making retroclones of OTHER systems/games, which makes those other products both retroclones AND Old School, but not OSR.

And NOW there's tons of products incorrectly lumped with the OSR rendering the label useless in DTTRPG.

Better make sure that you don't step on your own dick while having your victory dance there sporto.

I concede my point as it is Pundit's forum while you are celebrating that the OSR has become a marketing gimmick.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 28, 2024, 12:15:42 PM95% or more of the time, the label means compatibility with TSR.

Just check the first 100 titles to see if my guess is accurate:

https://legacy.drivethrurpg.com/browse.php?filters=45582_0_0_0_0

(Pundit is still number one... I'm number six today!)

The remaining 5% have a vague OSR aesthetic/sensibility (Mork Borg, Troika, etc.).

It is not useless; I use it to both buy and sell products that are compatible with TSR D&D.

I'm not invested either way as far as usage, but the vast majority of TTRPG products in general are compatible with some version of D&D/D20. It's the 800-pound gorilla of the market, and there are a huge number of publishers who cozy up to it in some way. I'm not sure how the percentages compare, but I think it's important to understand that baseline.

So I agree most people who search for "OSR" are looking for something close to TSR-era D&D. The question is, how important is mechanical compatibility to them, compared to other similarity? i.e. Is the average consumer more likely to interested in Mork Borg (which isn't mechanically compatible with D&D but is still lethal fantasy dungeon crawling) or Lion & Dragon (which is moderately compatible with AD&D, but is different from typical dungeon crawl)?

I don't have an answer for that - but I think that's the issue being grappled with.

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 28, 2024, 11:22:05 AMIt's actually the core difference, as I explain in my video, between "revival" and "renaissance". Revival is going "back to the that ole-time religion", making things as conservatively as possible (often more conservative than they ever really were in the old-time). A "renaissance" is when people want to recover the old techniques and create new masterpieces with them.

So a "revival" is inherently anti-innovation while a renaissance is inherently pro-creativity, just within certain boxes.

That terminology sounds reasonable, but I don't see why this idea of a pro-creativity renaissance should be restricted to D&D as compared to other old-school games? If it's the concept of the renaissance that is important (as opposed to retroclones), then shouldn't the OSR include innovative games that build off of other games from 1977-1983 or so?

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2024, 05:23:49 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 05:05:39 PM

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2024, 04:45:30 PMGreetings!

I don't understand the deep-seated need some people have in arguing about non-D&D games being part of the OSR. They aren't. The OSR is specifically based upon D&D games. The early people that started the whole "OSR" movement were specifically D&D fans. So, OSR is a movement and design school based upon D&D games.

Just get over it.

Your favourite old non-D&D game may be in fact a game, a RPG, but that does not make it part of the OSR.

This isn't difficult to understand. OSR is for D&D based games. Everything else is just some other kind of game. Roleplaying game, whatever.

Beyond that, if you are a person that doesn't like RPG's, or has a maniacal hatred for D&D, fine. Get over yourself, and go on playing whatever your game is. That's no reason to screech about D&D games, or REEE about your hatred of the OSR.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Well, to answer your question, the OSR did not start out as a D&D centric box destined to become an iconic marketing brand like Pundit has decided it is on this forum. Since it is Pundit's forum, that is what it is here but it is not the same everywhere else.

Sorry if my desire to get back to the roots of the OSR acronym sounds like a screech or a REEE to you, maybe the Navy's Younger Son needs to grow a thicker skin?

Greetings!

*Laughing*! Ahh, my friend! Well, as far as I know, the early OSR beginnings were Matt Finch, OSRIC, and I suppose DCC. Even if you also think of Castles & Crusades, that is all D&D based. Before them, noone ever talked about the OSR.

Who was talking about the OSR in the early beginning years that was not D&D based?

I would also put forth that everyone I know of, game design/company wise, for example, when they talk about the OSR, it is with the clear understanding that such a game is D&D based. You know, lots of people beyond Pundit. *Laughing* I get that Pundit can *rub some people the wrong way* *Laughing*

But, Jeff, be that as it may be, the OSR is very much in the public eye as being D&D based games. I didn't make that up, my friend! It just is, you know?

Where else, or who, thinks of the OSR as NOT being based on D&D games, Jeff?

You made me choke on my coffee laughing! Ahh, yes. Time to light up my pipe and make some new coffee.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

One could argue the OSR movement began with Hackmaster 4E back in 2001. Heck, it even says "old school gaming" right there on the back of the HM 4e PHB. You can't get more blatant than that.

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 09:57:47 PMWell, like you said in a secondary post, nobody knows what the OSR is in the real world and if it is the OldOSR that I know or the NuOSR that is defined here.

I sell OSR books at conventions, there is a passionate group that still play and buy OSR games. One problem, I had a customer last weekend argue with me that my games weren't "really old D&D" compatible because it had some small difference. Seriously, to these guys if there is even a +1 or -1 difference anywhere it might as well be a completely different edition, or another incompatible game system.

To me everything from 1974 OD&D up to 2nd edition are the same game, just with more stuff.

Even most of 3rd and 5th I use in my OSR campaign all the time with very little conversion effort.

I can't deal with 4th though. It's like an alien language to me.

Quote from: VengerSatanis on May 28, 2024, 12:35:37 PMGetting rid of woke bullshit, especially from newcomer tourists who don't even fully grasp what RPGs are?  Absolutely.  But the OSR also represents, to a lesser extent, of course, traditional RPGs from the old-school days... some of which included dice pools and whatnot. 

And the renaissance implies innovation, as Pundit said, but as Figment says, "Imagination works best when set free."  At a certain point, something can become not OSR, but the lines are blurry - and that is by design.  It's why the OSR is still a thing, and not dead as many claim.

VS

This goes entirely against what Pundit, Geeky, and the OSR=Classic D&D have been saying. Which is *precisely* why for years I've been asking. I'm not woke by any stretch of any imagination. To me, this element you're bringing up needs to happen writ-large across culture, not just gaming. So let's set that gatekeeping aspect aside (which I think most of us agree upon - everything needs to be reimagined and rebuilt. check!)

But by your definition retroclones of MSH, Palladium Fantasy, or d6 would be considered "OSR". And you're an OSR publisher.

So which is it? I *care* not because I like old-school D&D - it's fine, not something I play or run. BUT I do play old-school games. And if OSR is an ethos that is cooked into a style of play, as well as design, if I'm being told by you, YES! that's what OSR is... then maybe the things I'm going to be doing are OSR? But Pundit, Rob, and others are saying it's compatibility with B/X(ish) D&D and the retroclones using that design paradigm exclusively. In which case, I guess I'm out?

Yes, OSR *now* is a marketing brand. Or at least as it's being intimated as such by Pundit, not sure if he means it. But I'm down with that though I have no need for it if it's B/X exclusive. I'm 100% down with the Renaissance aspect of it, but only as it pertains the systems I use more. If not? No problem.

So which is it?

Quote from: tenbones on May 28, 2024, 05:54:26 PMSo which is it?

Schrodinger's OSR, obviously.

Quote from: Brad on May 28, 2024, 06:44:19 PM

Quote from: tenbones on May 28, 2024, 05:54:26 PMSo which is it?

Schrodinger's OSR, obviously.

The problem is this... attitude(?) that is I don't agree with anyone that I'm some kind of apostate. At least that's the vibe.

So lemme just put my cards on the table: I plan on publishing and doing content about how to run RPG's (not fucking "TTRPGS" - RPGS, we invented it, videogames can go fuck themselves) etc. I'm interested in the OSR as a branding device that expressly is anti-whatever it is that has ruined RPG's and culture writ large.

I don't give a shit about D&D, old school or new-school as a brand. As a ruleset fine. Rules are merely a way to express task-resolution. They're not to be worshipped outside of "what works for you" at your table. To that end, D&D-BX/Edition of your Choice, does a lot of things well, but not all the things I want it to do. *NOT A PROBLEM*.

To Pundit's claim it's a design philosophy, I can get down behind that, only that it sounds like that philosophy only goes as far as d20. I'm more interested in the aesthetics produced by that philosophy expanded outward to include and promote *how* we played back in the Old Days. Because I sure as fuck played all the D&D that existed all the way to 5th edition, but I played and ran a lot of other stuff too. My sensibilities were not solely informed by D&D, though a lot of my tastes were emergent from those decades of play. I think d20 is well covered by the modern "OSR" - however we want to define it.

But when I publish I want people of like mind in the spirit of the Renaissance. I don't want to just do Michelangelo's school. I want some Bellini, and some Raphael, and some Tintoretto. Just like in the Old Days when there was Traveller, Palladium, Rolemaster, MSH - and rules inspired by those games doing it right in the large sense.

If this isn't what the OSR is supposed to be, then no worries, I'll move on. (and maybe it's time for the OSG!!)

Quote from: blackstone on May 28, 2024, 03:22:07 PM

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2024, 05:23:49 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 05:05:39 PM

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2024, 04:45:30 PMGreetings!

I don't understand the deep-seated need some people have in arguing about non-D&D games being part of the OSR. They aren't. The OSR is specifically based upon D&D games. The early people that started the whole "OSR" movement were specifically D&D fans. So, OSR is a movement and design school based upon D&D games.

Just get over it.

Your favourite old non-D&D game may be in fact a game, a RPG, but that does not make it part of the OSR.

This isn't difficult to understand. OSR is for D&D based games. Everything else is just some other kind of game. Roleplaying game, whatever.

Beyond that, if you are a person that doesn't like RPG's, or has a maniacal hatred for D&D, fine. Get over yourself, and go on playing whatever your game is. That's no reason to screech about D&D games, or REEE about your hatred of the OSR.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Well, to answer your question, the OSR did not start out as a D&D centric box destined to become an iconic marketing brand like Pundit has decided it is on this forum. Since it is Pundit's forum, that is what it is here but it is not the same everywhere else.

Sorry if my desire to get back to the roots of the OSR acronym sounds like a screech or a REEE to you, maybe the Navy's Younger Son needs to grow a thicker skin?

Greetings!

*Laughing*! Ahh, my friend! Well, as far as I know, the early OSR beginnings were Matt Finch, OSRIC, and I suppose DCC. Even if you also think of Castles & Crusades, that is all D&D based. Before them, noone ever talked about the OSR.

Who was talking about the OSR in the early beginning years that was not D&D based?

I would also put forth that everyone I know of, game design/company wise, for example, when they talk about the OSR, it is with the clear understanding that such a game is D&D based. You know, lots of people beyond Pundit. *Laughing* I get that Pundit can *rub some people the wrong way* *Laughing*

But, Jeff, be that as it may be, the OSR is very much in the public eye as being D&D based games. I didn't make that up, my friend! It just is, you know?

Where else, or who, thinks of the OSR as NOT being based on D&D games, Jeff?

You made me choke on my coffee laughing! Ahh, yes. Time to light up my pipe and make some new coffee.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

One could argue the OSR movement began with Hackmaster 4E back in 2001. Heck, it even says "old school gaming" right there on the back of the HM 4e PHB. You can't get more blatant than that.

Hackmaster was in some ways the ancestor of the OSR. I would suggest that the real first OSR products were Mazes & Minotaurs and Encounter Critical, but most of the 1st-wave OSR people choose to deny that because neither of those games fit what they ultimately tried to force the OSR to be: just reproduction of specific D&D editions. But both M&M and EC were actually perfect examples of 2nd/3rd wave games.

Quote from: tenbones on May 28, 2024, 05:54:26 PM

Quote from: VengerSatanis on May 28, 2024, 12:35:37 PMGetting rid of woke bullshit, especially from newcomer tourists who don't even fully grasp what RPGs are?  Absolutely.  But the OSR also represents, to a lesser extent, of course, traditional RPGs from the old-school days... some of which included dice pools and whatnot. 

And the renaissance implies innovation, as Pundit said, but as Figment says, "Imagination works best when set free."  At a certain point, something can become not OSR, but the lines are blurry - and that is by design.  It's why the OSR is still a thing, and not dead as many claim.

VS

This goes entirely against what Pundit, Geeky, and the OSR=Classic D&D have been saying. Which is *precisely* why for years I've been asking. I'm not woke by any stretch of any imagination. To me, this element you're bringing up needs to happen writ-large across culture, not just gaming. So let's set that gatekeeping aspect aside (which I think most of us agree upon - everything needs to be reimagined and rebuilt. check!)

But by your definition retroclones of MSH, Palladium Fantasy, or d6 would be considered "OSR". And you're an OSR publisher.

So which is it? I *care* not because I like old-school D&D - it's fine, not something I play or run. BUT I do play old-school games. And if OSR is an ethos that is cooked into a style of play, as well as design, if I'm being told by you, YES! that's what OSR is... then maybe the things I'm going to be doing are OSR? But Pundit, Rob, and others are saying it's compatibility with B/X(ish) D&D and the retroclones using that design paradigm exclusively. In which case, I guess I'm out?

Yes, OSR *now* is a marketing brand. Or at least as it's being intimated as such by Pundit, not sure if he means it. But I'm down with that though I have no need for it if it's B/X exclusive. I'm 100% down with the Renaissance aspect of it, but only as it pertains the systems I use more. If not? No problem.

So which is it?

Venger's statement is silly, largely as a consequence of trying to defend the fact that until very recently, some of his products were not OSR compatible (Alpha Blue, Crimson Dragon Slayer; both were presented by Venger as "OSR" but had no relation in mechanics to D&D).

The quote is retarded too. Imagination is NOT at its best when just told "you can think up ANYTHING!". Every single study on human psychology has shown that imagination is always MORE effective when restricted: if you tell a person that they can "paint anything that they want", the chance that this will be better than someone else who is told "you can paint but must do so within these rules" is almost zero. There are occasional geniuses of course, but the average person flounders and falls back on mediocrity when not given structure. And Venger is not that occasional.

So no, having boundaries is actually something that strengthen imagination, and the OSR is proof of that. And likewise, NOT just as a "marketing scheme" as people who dislike me seem to want to claim, but as a DESIGN SCHOOL, and in the hopes that this school will be able to continue to create great innovative games for years to come, is why we insist on the compatibility issue. If we don't, very quickly the OSR then WOULD be turned into just a 'brand', one that any idiot could just slap on his non-D&D-based book to sell more copies.

Quote from: tenbones on May 28, 2024, 08:31:20 PM

Quote from: Brad on May 28, 2024, 06:44:19 PM

Quote from: tenbones on May 28, 2024, 05:54:26 PMSo which is it?

Schrodinger's OSR, obviously.

The problem is this... attitude(?) that is I don't agree with anyone that I'm some kind of apostate. At least that's the vibe.

So lemme just put my cards on the table: I plan on publishing and doing content about how to run RPG's (not fucking "TTRPGS" - RPGS, we invented it, videogames can go fuck themselves) etc. I'm interested in the OSR as a branding device that expressly is anti-whatever it is that has ruined RPG's and culture writ large.

I don't give a shit about D&D, old school or new-school as a brand. As a ruleset fine. Rules are merely a way to express task-resolution. They're not to be worshipped outside of "what works for you" at your table. To that end, D&D-BX/Edition of your Choice, does a lot of things well, but not all the things I want it to do. *NOT A PROBLEM*.

To Pundit's claim it's a design philosophy, I can get down behind that, only that it sounds like that philosophy only goes as far as d20. I'm more interested in the aesthetics produced by that philosophy expanded outward to include and promote *how* we played back in the Old Days. Because I sure as fuck played all the D&D that existed all the way to 5th edition, but I played and ran a lot of other stuff too. My sensibilities were not solely informed by D&D, though a lot of my tastes were emergent from those decades of play. I think d20 is well covered by the modern "OSR" - however we want to define it.

But when I publish I want people of like mind in the spirit of the Renaissance. I don't want to just do Michelangelo's school. I want some Bellini, and some Raphael, and some Tintoretto. Just like in the Old Days when there was Traveller, Palladium, Rolemaster, MSH - and rules inspired by those games doing it right in the large sense.

If this isn't what the OSR is supposed to be, then no worries, I'll move on. (and maybe it's time for the OSG!!)

There's no reason anyone can't take the same design principles that the OSR explicitly applies to D&D, and use them to be applied to the Traveller ruleset, or the Palladium ruleset, or Rolemaster, or whichever. Its just that those would be their own parallel movements to the OSR.

Makes sense to me!

Quote from: tenbones on May 28, 2024, 08:31:20 PM

Quote from: Brad on May 28, 2024, 06:44:19 PM

Quote from: tenbones on May 28, 2024, 05:54:26 PMSo which is it?

Schrodinger's OSR, obviously.

The problem is this... attitude(?) that is I don't agree with anyone that I'm some kind of apostate. At least that's the vibe.

So lemme just put my cards on the table: I plan on publishing and doing content about how to run RPG's (not fucking "TTRPGS" - RPGS, we invented it, videogames can go fuck themselves) etc. I'm interested in the OSR as a branding device that expressly is anti-whatever it is that has ruined RPG's and culture writ large.

I don't give a shit about D&D, old school or new-school as a brand. As a ruleset fine. Rules are merely a way to express task-resolution. They're not to be worshipped outside of "what works for you" at your table. To that end, D&D-BX/Edition of your Choice, does a lot of things well, but not all the things I want it to do. *NOT A PROBLEM*.

To Pundit's claim it's a design philosophy, I can get down behind that, only that it sounds like that philosophy only goes as far as d20. I'm more interested in the aesthetics produced by that philosophy expanded outward to include and promote *how* we played back in the Old Days. Because I sure as fuck played all the D&D that existed all the way to 5th edition, but I played and ran a lot of other stuff too. My sensibilities were not solely informed by D&D, though a lot of my tastes were emergent from those decades of play. I think d20 is well covered by the modern "OSR" - however we want to define it.

But when I publish I want people of like mind in the spirit of the Renaissance. I don't want to just do Michelangelo's school. I want some Bellini, and some Raphael, and some Tintoretto. Just like in the Old Days when there was Traveller, Palladium, Rolemaster, MSH - and rules inspired by those games doing it right in the large sense.

If this isn't what the OSR is supposed to be, then no worries, I'll move on. (and maybe it's time for the OSG!!)

CSR Classic School/Style Renaissance

But, if you're going to publish for different rulesets you might want to think of a way for the customer to differentiate.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 28, 2024, 11:07:52 PM

Quote from: tenbones on May 28, 2024, 08:31:20 PM

Quote from: Brad on May 28, 2024, 06:44:19 PM

Quote from: tenbones on May 28, 2024, 05:54:26 PMSo which is it?

Schrodinger's OSR, obviously.

The problem is this... attitude(?) that is I don't agree with anyone that I'm some kind of apostate. At least that's the vibe.

So lemme just put my cards on the table: I plan on publishing and doing content about how to run RPG's (not fucking "TTRPGS" - RPGS, we invented it, videogames can go fuck themselves) etc. I'm interested in the OSR as a branding device that expressly is anti-whatever it is that has ruined RPG's and culture writ large.

I don't give a shit about D&D, old school or new-school as a brand. As a ruleset fine. Rules are merely a way to express task-resolution. They're not to be worshipped outside of "what works for you" at your table. To that end, D&D-BX/Edition of your Choice, does a lot of things well, but not all the things I want it to do. *NOT A PROBLEM*.

To Pundit's claim it's a design philosophy, I can get down behind that, only that it sounds like that philosophy only goes as far as d20. I'm more interested in the aesthetics produced by that philosophy expanded outward to include and promote *how* we played back in the Old Days. Because I sure as fuck played all the D&D that existed all the way to 5th edition, but I played and ran a lot of other stuff too. My sensibilities were not solely informed by D&D, though a lot of my tastes were emergent from those decades of play. I think d20 is well covered by the modern "OSR" - however we want to define it.

But when I publish I want people of like mind in the spirit of the Renaissance. I don't want to just do Michelangelo's school. I want some Bellini, and some Raphael, and some Tintoretto. Just like in the Old Days when there was Traveller, Palladium, Rolemaster, MSH - and rules inspired by those games doing it right in the large sense.

If this isn't what the OSR is supposed to be, then no worries, I'll move on. (and maybe it's time for the OSG!!)

CSR Classic School/Style Renaissance

But, if you're going to publish for different rulesets you might want to think of a way for the customer to differentiate.

OS Old School - Our acronym uses fewer letters!

Less filling! Tastes great!

Purple! Green!

Quote from: jhkim on May 28, 2024, 02:47:08 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 28, 2024, 12:15:42 PM95% or more of the time, the label means compatibility with TSR.

Just check the first 100 titles to see if my guess is accurate:

https://legacy.drivethrurpg.com/browse.php?filters=45582_0_0_0_0

(Pundit is still number one... I'm number six today!)

The remaining 5% have a vague OSR aesthetic/sensibility (Mork Borg, Troika, etc.).

It is not useless; I use it to both buy and sell products that are compatible with TSR D&D.

I'm not invested either way as far as usage, but the vast majority of TTRPG products in general are compatible with some version of D&D/D20. It's the 800-pound gorilla of the market, and there are a huge number of publishers who cozy up to it in some way. I'm not sure how the percentages compare, but I think it's important to understand that baseline.

So I agree most people who search for "OSR" are looking for something close to TSR-era D&D. The question is, how important is mechanical compatibility to them, compared to other similarity? i.e. Is the average consumer more likely to interested in Mork Borg (which isn't mechanically compatible with D&D but is still lethal fantasy dungeon crawling) or Lion & Dragon (which is moderately compatible with AD&D, but is different from typical dungeon crawl)?

I don't have an answer for that - but I think that's the issue being grappled with.

Well, just check the top 100 best sellers and you'll see most are NOT really compatible with D&D - you have Runequest, Traveller, Fallout, Fabula Ultima. You have a few that are compatible to 5e or Pathfinder, but they don't usually call tresledes OSR.

How important is mechanical compatibility? When I'm looking for an OSR game, I'm 100% looking for that, although I also buy non-OSR games.

I would bet MOST people do the same, and I'd be impressed if I heard a majority of people saying they use the OSR label to find products that have OSR aesthetics or "spirit" such as Mork Borg or Troika, even if these are fine games.

Even games like Cairn are calling themselves "NSR" now.

Quote from: tenbones on May 28, 2024, 08:31:20 PMThe problem is this... attitude(?) that is I don't agree with anyone that I'm some kind of apostate. At least that's the vibe.

It's absolutely the vibe. We're all on the same team here (for the most part), so quibbling about this sort of crap just allows storygamer retards to control D&D and subvert RPGs into garbage. Hence, my original statement that I think this is all stupid.

That said: