TheRPGSite

Some people say that the Old School Revival has already done everything it needed to do. That could be true.
But it's also true that the Old School Renaissance is more important, and more successful than ever, as the biggest indie design movement of all time.
#ttrpg #dnd #OSR

Count down to the usual suspects intent on diluting the term until it means nothing.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 24, 2024, 02:38:41 AMCount down to the usual suspects intent on diluting the term until it means nothing.

Well thats what they do. The OSR has produced so many cool products that have not been tainted by woke bullshit and the woke asshats cannot stand that. They must infect every aspect of culture, and there can be no bastions of sanity left to compare to their mindless drivel.

I partially agree and disagree with the video, I'm most certainly in agreement that OSR as a design school strengths laid in  it's limitations.

Limitations tend to place selection bias on creativity, the creators worst enemy is a tabula rasa, the blank sheet comes with it choice paralysis, picking OD&D, B/X or AD&D as a north star is pretty ingenious.

At the same time I think we should be wary of being too married to that notion, hence we get this psudo-Gyaxian cult of trying to find what Ur-D&D is, like you mentioned dice pools, I don't see why you couldn't make a dice-pool version of B/X with skills?

same character attribute and class-niche protection  but instead of rolling a d20 for attacking and skills you roll d6s, maybe I'm stupid but I can't discern a clear reason why a certain mechanic does or does not exclude an OSR game? there is no hard line you can draw in the sand that doesn't either includes games that clearly don't belong or exclude games that do. (except maybe point buy)

Hence I'm not interested in any attempt at which to define the OSR on mechanical terms cause that's totally fruitless, the OSR has a spirit about it, not a law.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 24, 2024, 07:42:23 PMI partially agree and disagree with the video, I'm most certainly in agreement that OSR as a design school strengths laid in  it's limitations.

Limitations tend to place selection bias on creativity, the creators worst enemy is a tabula rasa, the blank sheet comes with it choice paralysis, picking OD&D, B/X or AD&D as a north star is pretty ingenious.

At the same time I think we should be wary of being too married to that notion, hence we get this psudo-Gyaxian cult of trying to find what Ur-D&D is, like you mentioned dice pools, I don't see why you couldn't make a dice-pool version of B/X with skills?

same character attribute and class-niche protection  but instead of rolling a d20 for attacking and skills you roll d6s, maybe I'm stupid but I can't discern a clear reason why a certain mechanic does or does not exclude an OSR game? there is no hard line you can draw in the sand that doesn't either includes games that clearly don't belong or exclude games that do. (except maybe point buy)

Hence I'm not interested in any attempt at which to define the OSR on mechanical terms cause that's totally fruitless, the OSR has a spirit about it, not a law.

So, OSR means different things to different people, but I like to use it as a label of (rough) compatibility with TSR.

It means you can use TSR modules with little conversion.

In this sense, DCC does a few things different, but has a strong OSR aesthetic. It has the "spirit", as you say.

Anyway, could you have dice-pool B/X? It would be hard, because AC wouldn't be easy to convert, for example.

But it is possible - ESPECIALLY for skill, since B/X has a dozen different systems for things like climbing (percentage versus ability check) and hiding (the halfling class has TWO different systems - 90% and 2-in-6).

IIRC lamentations of the flame princess is experimenting with dice pool saving throws.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 24, 2024, 09:15:40 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 24, 2024, 07:42:23 PMI partially agree and disagree with the video, I'm most certainly in agreement that OSR as a design school strengths laid in  it's limitations.

Limitations tend to place selection bias on creativity, the creators worst enemy is a tabula rasa, the blank sheet comes with it choice paralysis, picking OD&D, B/X or AD&D as a north star is pretty ingenious.

At the same time I think we should be wary of being too married to that notion, hence we get this psudo-Gyaxian cult of trying to find what Ur-D&D is, like you mentioned dice pools, I don't see why you couldn't make a dice-pool version of B/X with skills?

same character attribute and class-niche protection  but instead of rolling a d20 for attacking and skills you roll d6s, maybe I'm stupid but I can't discern a clear reason why a certain mechanic does or does not exclude an OSR game? there is no hard line you can draw in the sand that doesn't either includes games that clearly don't belong or exclude games that do. (except maybe point buy)

Hence I'm not interested in any attempt at which to define the OSR on mechanical terms cause that's totally fruitless, the OSR has a spirit about it, not a law.

So, OSR means different things to different people, but I like to use it as a label of (rough) compatibility with TSR.

It means you can use TSR modules with little conversion.

In this sense, DCC does a few things different, but has a strong OSR aesthetic. It has the "spirit", as you say.

Anyway, could you have dice-pool B/X? It would be hard, because AC wouldn't be easy to convert, for example.

But it is possible - ESPECIALLY for skill, since B/X has a dozen different systems for things like climbing (percentage versus ability check) and hiding (the halfling class has TWO different systems - 90% and 2-in-6).

IIRC lamentations of the flame princess is experimenting with dice pool saving throws.

If it clues you in, while perhaps a full on dice pool system for an OSR game would be kinda of hard (though I think possible) I'm designing a Modern-setting OSR where the "magic-powers" are a risked dice pool mechanic, and it's worked pretty well with my two playtest groups, so it can work at least as a sub-mechanic.

Though I am open to shifting to something else, though I haven't found a better fly-wheel risk/reward setup yet.

I've always thought OSR was just "Is it directly compatible with TSR era D&D/AD&D"? And a way to publish material for said games.

But it's been hijacked by grifters and really pretentious people. Still enough good stuff, but far too much gets overlooked by the flood of trendy/kitschy/well marketed crap.

I've always been partial towards the Old School Renaissance interpretation, though that's likely because I got here pretty late.

My categorization of it always hinged around building off the existing D&D framework in a way you can create new games, but with a well designed chassis at base already, and so that your games are still broadly compatible with what a lot of other people are doing already, which is a win for everybody.

I'm always interested in seeing where people consider the lines are, like how Pundit said that point buy is flatly incompatible with OSR. While I definetly prefer rolling for stats, and think that that's more in line with OSR sensibilites, I think that a game that uses point buy could still be compatible with other OSR games and might still be therefore considered OSR itself. Why the hard line against pointbuy?

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on May 25, 2024, 02:05:48 AMWhy the hard line against pointbuy?

The reason is entirely arbitrary. Pundit has a preferred way to play and thinks any deviation from that is garbage.

I mean, it's not like many of the old TSR pregens in modules were actually randomly rolled.

It's not like there weren't groups everywhere doing "put 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13 in whatever order you like and start with max hp" as a generation method (heck, I encountered that one far more often than rolling for chargen back in the day).

So, yeah, it's various personalities making a claim that their way was the OneTrueWay and everything else isn't actually the "true" OSR.

Some other personality will tell you something completely different and because it was something that just sorta happened instead of an organized effort there is no OneTrueLeader to sort it all out; just a bunch of competing interests trying to lay claim to an ephemeral crown.

There's reasons I don't OSR; one of the modern ones is far too many OneTrueWayists whose "true ways" look nothing like what I actually saw played in the mid-to-late-80s.

I can't speak for the OP but I don't think point buy (or skills, or feats, or combat maneuvers) is in any way incompatible to the OSR.

When I say "compatibility with TSR" I do not mean theoretically, I'm actually running classic TSR modules and I don't want to do much conversion during the game. I also use old school monster manuals and encounter tables. This all despite of not running any TSR game (I use my own retroclone, Dark Fantasy Basic).

Of course, there are few "hard lines", since TSR contains many variations: roll high, roll low, 1d20, 2d6, 1d100, additional abilities (comeliness), race as class or separated, sci-fi aspects and entire games, NWP, WP, etc.

But the more conversion you need the farther you are.

Here is a curious example from Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/1d06tya/can_anyone_weigh_in_on_whether_our_game_is_osr_or/

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 25, 2024, 09:59:54 AMI can't speak for the OP but I don't think point buy (or skills, or feats, or combat maneuvers) is in any way incompatible to the OSR.

When I say "compatibility with TSR" I do not mean theoretically, I'm actually running classic TSR modules and I don't want to do much conversion during the game. I also use old school monster manuals and encounter tables. This all despite of not running any TSR game (I use my own retroclone, Dark Fantasy Basic).

Of course, there are few "hard lines", since TSR contains many variations: roll high, roll low, 1d20, 2d6, 1d100, additional abilities (comeliness), race as class or separated, sci-fi aspects and entire games, NWP, WP, etc.

But the more conversion you need the farther you are.

Here is a curious example from Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/1d06tya/can_anyone_weigh_in_on_whether_our_game_is_osr_or/

Old school is comprised of more than just older TSR games. A tweaked clone of Traveler qualifies as old school IMHO.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 25, 2024, 10:31:21 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 25, 2024, 09:59:54 AMI can't speak for the OP but I don't think point buy (or skills, or feats, or combat maneuvers) is in any way incompatible to the OSR.

When I say "compatibility with TSR" I do not mean theoretically, I'm actually running classic TSR modules and I don't want to do much conversion during the game. I also use old school monster manuals and encounter tables. This all despite of not running any TSR game (I use my own retroclone, Dark Fantasy Basic).

Of course, there are few "hard lines", since TSR contains many variations: roll high, roll low, 1d20, 2d6, 1d100, additional abilities (comeliness), race as class or separated, sci-fi aspects and entire games, NWP, WP, etc.

But the more conversion you need the farther you are.

Here is a curious example from Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/1d06tya/can_anyone_weigh_in_on_whether_our_game_is_osr_or/

Old school is comprised of more than just older TSR games. A tweaked clone of Traveler qualifies as old school IMHO.

Traveler is "old school" but not OSR IMO. I think even the term "OSR" might have been inspired by "TSR" (the old logos certainly have).

If games inspired by Traveler, Runequest, Villains and Vigilantes are OSR, the label loses is usefulness.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 25, 2024, 10:31:21 AMOld school is comprised of more than just older TSR games. A tweaked clone of Traveler qualifies as old school IMHO.

And thus the truth of it all; the OSR is a nearly useless marketing term. It means everything and nothing depending on who you ask. For some it means TSR only, others include Traveler and other games from the 70s and sometimes the early 80s. DriveThruRPG lists Zwiehander as OSR.

People can't even agree on what the "R" means. Pundit is now trying to claim it as two separate types, but there's way more than just Revival and Renaissance; I've heard everything from Rules to Revolution also used as the R.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 25, 2024, 10:46:15 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 25, 2024, 10:31:21 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 25, 2024, 09:59:54 AMI can't speak for the OP but I don't think point buy (or skills, or feats, or combat maneuvers) is in any way incompatible to the OSR.

When I say "compatibility with TSR" I do not mean theoretically, I'm actually running classic TSR modules and I don't want to do much conversion during the game. I also use old school monster manuals and encounter tables. This all despite of not running any TSR game (I use my own retroclone, Dark Fantasy Basic).

Of course, there are few "hard lines", since TSR contains many variations: roll high, roll low, 1d20, 2d6, 1d100, additional abilities (comeliness), race as class or separated, sci-fi aspects and entire games, NWP, WP, etc.

But the more conversion you need the farther you are.

Here is a curious example from Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/1d06tya/can_anyone_weigh_in_on_whether_our_game_is_osr_or/

Old school is comprised of more than just older TSR games. A tweaked clone of Traveler qualifies as old school IMHO.

Traveler is "old school" but not OSR IMO. I think even the term "OSR" might have been inspired by "TSR" (the old logos certainly have).

If games inspired by Traveler, Runequest, Villains and Vigilantes are OSR, the label loses is usefulness.

Which is (IMHO) the point of including everything under the Sun:

The label looses it's meaning and therefore
it looses it's marketing power.

IMHO not even ALL TSR games or their retroclones ARE OSR, unless you use the D&D mechanics and import the setting.

"When everything is OSR, nothing will be"

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 25, 2024, 10:31:21 AMOld school is comprised of more than just older TSR games. A tweaked clone of Traveler qualifies as old school IMHO.

And thus the truth of it all; the OSR is a nearly useless marketing term. It means everything and nothing depending on who you ask. For some it means TSR only, others include Traveler and other games from the 70s and sometimes the early 80s. DriveThruRPG lists Zwiehander as OSR.

People can't even agree on what the "R" means. Pundit is now trying to claim it as two separate types, but there's way more than just Revival and Renaissance; I've heard everything from Rules to Revolution also used as the R.

'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action'

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AMPeople can't even agree on what the "R" means. Pundit is now trying to claim it as two separate types, but there's way more than just Revival and Renaissance; I've heard everything from Rules to Revolution also used as the R.

  I still think "Ruckus" is the most accurate descriptor I've ever heard applied. :)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on May 25, 2024, 02:01:04 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AMPeople can't even agree on what the "R" means. Pundit is now trying to claim it as two separate types, but there's way more than just Revival and Renaissance; I've heard everything from Rules to Revolution also used as the R.

I still think "Ruckus" is the most accurate descriptor I've ever heard applied. :)

You're NOT wrong.

I largely think of it as a solution in search of a problem; an attempt to create a marketing niche for something better served by more strict comparability notices. "Compatible with B/X" or "works with Traveler" or "Compatible with the first advanced edition of the world's most popular RPG" are all more useful than the term OSR has ever been.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 24, 2024, 07:42:23 PMI partially agree and disagree with the video, I'm most certainly in agreement that OSR as a design school strengths laid in  it's limitations.

Limitations tend to place selection bias on creativity, the creators worst enemy is a tabula rasa, the blank sheet comes with it choice paralysis, picking OD&D, B/X or AD&D as a north star is pretty ingenious.

At the same time I think we should be wary of being too married to that notion, hence we get this psudo-Gyaxian cult of trying to find what Ur-D&D is, like you mentioned dice pools, I don't see why you couldn't make a dice-pool version of B/X with skills?

same character attribute and class-niche protection  but instead of rolling a d20 for attacking and skills you roll d6s, maybe I'm stupid but I can't discern a clear reason why a certain mechanic does or does not exclude an OSR game? there is no hard line you can draw in the sand that doesn't either includes games that clearly don't belong or exclude games that do. (except maybe point buy)

Hence I'm not interested in any attempt at which to define the OSR on mechanical terms cause that's totally fruitless, the OSR has a spirit about it, not a law.

The reason why the core mechanics are so important is compatibility. Compatibility is a central feature of the OSR's success; where you can take any two OSR books, by different authors, even in different genres, and you can with the absolute minimum of effort plug stuff from one book into the other totally different book.

If people get to start claiming their D6 dicepool game is OSR, that compatibility is lost.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on May 25, 2024, 02:05:48 AMI've always been partial towards the Old School Renaissance interpretation, though that's likely because I got here pretty late.

My categorization of it always hinged around building off the existing D&D framework in a way you can create new games, but with a well designed chassis at base already, and so that your games are still broadly compatible with what a lot of other people are doing already, which is a win for everybody.

I'm always interested in seeing where people consider the lines are, like how Pundit said that point buy is flatly incompatible with OSR. While I definetly prefer rolling for stats, and think that that's more in line with OSR sensibilites, I think that a game that uses point buy could still be compatible with other OSR games and might still be therefore considered OSR itself. Why the hard line against pointbuy?

Because point-buy leads to extreme min-maxing and "charbuild optimization", which turns out to be contrary to compatibiilty. Having randomly-rolled ability scores, and not being able to "purchase" skills or feat to taste, means that compatibility is maintained.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 25, 2024, 10:31:21 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 25, 2024, 09:59:54 AMI can't speak for the OP but I don't think point buy (or skills, or feats, or combat maneuvers) is in any way incompatible to the OSR.

When I say "compatibility with TSR" I do not mean theoretically, I'm actually running classic TSR modules and I don't want to do much conversion during the game. I also use old school monster manuals and encounter tables. This all despite of not running any TSR game (I use my own retroclone, Dark Fantasy Basic).

Of course, there are few "hard lines", since TSR contains many variations: roll high, roll low, 1d20, 2d6, 1d100, additional abilities (comeliness), race as class or separated, sci-fi aspects and entire games, NWP, WP, etc.

But the more conversion you need the farther you are.

Here is a curious example from Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/1d06tya/can_anyone_weigh_in_on_whether_our_game_is_osr_or/

Old school is comprised of more than just older TSR games. A tweaked clone of Traveler qualifies as old school IMHO.

Old School, definitely. OSR, no. OSR is based on D&D. As I pointed out, Traveller has its own third-party old-school movement these days, and that's great. But it is its own separate thing.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 25, 2024, 10:31:21 AMOld school is comprised of more than just older TSR games. A tweaked clone of Traveler qualifies as old school IMHO.

And thus the truth of it all; the OSR is a nearly useless marketing term. It means everything and nothing depending on who you ask. For some it means TSR only, others include Traveler and other games from the 70s and sometimes the early 80s. DriveThruRPG lists Zwiehander as OSR.

Drivethru does that because it allows publishers to decide what categories it uses, and the grifter creator of that game wanted to claim it was in the OSR category because OSR products sell better. That's exactly an example of why there has to be strict definitions of what is OSR.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 02:25:23 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on May 25, 2024, 02:01:04 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AMPeople can't even agree on what the "R" means. Pundit is now trying to claim it as two separate types, but there's way more than just Revival and Renaissance; I've heard everything from Rules to Revolution also used as the R.

I still think "Ruckus" is the most accurate descriptor I've ever heard applied. :)

You're NOT wrong.

I largely think of it as a solution in search of a problem; an attempt to create a marketing niche for something better served by more strict comparability notices. "Compatible with B/X" or "works with Traveler" or "Compatible with the first advanced edition of the world's most popular RPG" are all more useful than the term OSR has ever been.

Spoken like someone who is angry that 2nd and 3rd wave OSR products exist and are hugely successful.

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:53:18 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 02:25:23 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on May 25, 2024, 02:01:04 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AMPeople can't even agree on what the "R" means. Pundit is now trying to claim it as two separate types, but there's way more than just Revival and Renaissance; I've heard everything from Rules to Revolution also used as the R.

I still think "Ruckus" is the most accurate descriptor I've ever heard applied. :)

You're NOT wrong.

I largely think of it as a solution in search of a problem; an attempt to create a marketing niche for something better served by more strict comparability notices. "Compatible with B/X" or "works with Traveler" or "Compatible with the first advanced edition of the world's most popular RPG" are all more useful than the term OSR has ever been.

Spoken like someone who is angry that 2nd and 3rd wave OSR products exist and are hugely successful.

Uh huh. You go right on believing what your ego needs to; that your products are relevant enough for me to give the slightest thought to.

You can't hate something you don't even think about most days and when you do it's only because someone else brought it up and is pretending they're some defining voice of a movement instead of someone who flexes the definition of OSR every bit as much to suit their needs.

Ex. Invisible College is marketed as an OSR-ruleset, but is a modern world setting with significant rules differences from D&D... you can't just plug-and-play it into a B/X or AD&D campaign. It's not compatible out of the box. But you market it as OSR anyway.

So if even the guy who wants the term to be taken seriously doesn't treat the term seriously, why should anyone else?

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 26, 2024, 08:44:26 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:53:18 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 02:25:23 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on May 25, 2024, 02:01:04 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AMPeople can't even agree on what the "R" means. Pundit is now trying to claim it as two separate types, but there's way more than just Revival and Renaissance; I've heard everything from Rules to Revolution also used as the R.

I still think "Ruckus" is the most accurate descriptor I've ever heard applied. :)

You're NOT wrong.

I largely think of it as a solution in search of a problem; an attempt to create a marketing niche for something better served by more strict comparability notices. "Compatible with B/X" or "works with Traveler" or "Compatible with the first advanced edition of the world's most popular RPG" are all more useful than the term OSR has ever been.

Spoken like someone who is angry that 2nd and 3rd wave OSR products exist and are hugely successful.

Uh huh. You go right on believing what your ego needs to; that your products are relevant enough for me to give the slightest thought to.

You can't hate something you don't even think about most days and when you do it's only because someone else brought it up and is pretending they're some defining voice of a movement instead of someone who flexes the definition of OSR every bit as much to suit their needs.

Ex. Invisible College is marketed as an OSR-ruleset, but is a modern world setting with significant rules differences from D&D... you can't just plug-and-play it into a B/X or AD&D campaign. It's not compatible out of the box. But you market it as OSR anyway.

So if even the guy who wants the term to be taken seriously doesn't treat the term seriously, why should anyone else?

Wait, what?!  You mean you like and enjoy early D&D and the adjacent games which borrow those mechanics?  You are a proponent of OD&D, BECMI, and AD&D and its mechanics?  Because I got the impression that you hated the earlier editions and never run or play them...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 26, 2024, 10:58:45 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 26, 2024, 08:44:26 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:53:18 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 02:25:23 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on May 25, 2024, 02:01:04 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AMPeople can't even agree on what the "R" means. Pundit is now trying to claim it as two separate types, but there's way more than just Revival and Renaissance; I've heard everything from Rules to Revolution also used as the R.

I still think "Ruckus" is the most accurate descriptor I've ever heard applied. :)

You're NOT wrong.

I largely think of it as a solution in search of a problem; an attempt to create a marketing niche for something better served by more strict comparability notices. "Compatible with B/X" or "works with Traveler" or "Compatible with the first advanced edition of the world's most popular RPG" are all more useful than the term OSR has ever been.

Spoken like someone who is angry that 2nd and 3rd wave OSR products exist and are hugely successful.

Uh huh. You go right on believing what your ego needs to; that your products are relevant enough for me to give the slightest thought to.

You can't hate something you don't even think about most days and when you do it's only because someone else brought it up and is pretending they're some defining voice of a movement instead of someone who flexes the definition of OSR every bit as much to suit their needs.

Ex. Invisible College is marketed as an OSR-ruleset, but is a modern world setting with significant rules differences from D&D... you can't just plug-and-play it into a B/X or AD&D campaign. It's not compatible out of the box. But you market it as OSR anyway.

So if even the guy who wants the term to be taken seriously doesn't treat the term seriously, why should anyone else?

Wait, what?!  You mean you like and enjoy early D&D and the adjacent games which borrow those mechanics?  You are a proponent of OD&D, BECMI, and AD&D and its mechanics?  Because I got the impression that you hated the earlier editions and never run or play them...

I don't play them. I don't run them. I don't see any offerings for them on the boards at my FLGS or their associated website.

I don't think about the OSR at all on my own. It only enters my brain when someone else brings it up and when they do I mostly just laugh to myself because it's invariably someone trying to make OneTrueWayist claims about a term practically defined by having no one with enough authority to define it.

I don't hate or love the OSR in the same way I don't hate or love what's living in the Deep Ocean. I do broadly get annoyed by OneTrueWayism, particularly when it insists on throwing away people who might agree with all of the problems in the modern RPG scene (that the Woke are intent on dividing and conquering and driving those who don't abide their insanity out entirely), but because they don't like random-stat generation or similar OSR-isms get decried as Woke puppets who want to destroy the hobby.

If you don't play what they say is the OSR way you're a garbage person who shouldn't even be in the hobby.

Never mind that their OneTrueWayist bullshit looks nothing like how I saw D&D actually played back in the day by the 12-15 year olds who actually played it. Random rolls only? Please. Outside of the retard who practically drove me from the hobby the norm in my area was arrange 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13 in whatever order you wanted and get max hit points and gold. If you got spells just put up to your limit for the level into your spellbook. Done.

That's because it was fun and you didn't have to waste any time making a new PC or have to worry about fudged dice or rolling multiple sets until you got something you wanted; put your six numbers in the order you wanted, pick a race/class (AD&D1e was the norm in these parts when I actually played), figure out your class stuff... back in the game.

Anyway, there's a whole chunk of players out there who, at least online, feel pretty homeless because we're not welcome at other places for not being Woke and aren't welcome here because we have no interest in bowing down to the self-proclaimed OSR high priests.

It's not healthy to hate though; hate is poison for the soul; which is why I just don't think of the OSR unless it's brought up here. Then I bring up the ridiculousness of the people who treat it as anything more than a marketing gimmick and get on with my day.

And most of the reason it is ridiculous is, again, OSR OneTrueWayists who lump anyone who doesn't worship their idol as belonging to the same group who are defined by their undying devotion to The Revolution and hatred for all that lives/exists... even as they insist on pushing their own Old School Revolution and hating on and ostracizing the unbelievers.

So there should be a new marketing term - OSG (Old School Game) which comprises all non-d20 based games from that era?

I like that the discussion about WHAT the OSR is continues to happen, because it will finally crystalize, whether it means its "just" a marketing term or, finally, into a mutually understood term that encompasses a specific ruleset. It used to make my teeth itch when people would lump d6, FASERIP, and other old school games into the OSR as if they're trying to protect those systems from "modernity".

But at least now, we're clear: it's d20 based systems using the B/X aesthetic designed to be modally compatible with one another.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 26, 2024, 12:32:33 PMAnyway, there's a whole chunk of players out there who, at least online, feel pretty homeless because we're not welcome at other places for not being Woke and aren't welcome here because we have no interest in bowing down to the self-proclaimed OSR high priests.

  Or as I sometimes put it, our options seem to be to bow down to the Great Dragon of Many Colors and of None worshipped by WotC, Paizo, and other big companies, or to smaller self-proclaimed golden calves in the OSR, BrOSR, etc. :)

  I also tend to think of "Old School" and "OSR" as a term of art for "roughly D&D-style play based on the game from 1974-1983", and use it in the same way one might refer to certain entities as "the Good People" or "the Fair Folk." :)

IMHO I think the best thing about the OSR approach is that design constraints (1) lead to real innovation and (2) encourage the developer to spend their time actually doing the thing they can contribute to the hobby, which is their cool setting or campaign or whatever. If you're also inventing your own system (1) why are you doing this, there are a gagillion of time tested systems many of which are available for use and (2) it's a very specific skill.

Quote from: tenbones on May 26, 2024, 12:35:28 PMSo there should be a new marketing term - OSG (Old School Game) which comprises all non-d20 based games from that era?

I like that the discussion about WHAT the OSR is continues to happen, because it will finally crystalize, whether it means its "just" a marketing term or, finally, into a mutually understood term that encompasses a specific ruleset. It used to make my teeth itch when people would lump d6, FASERIP, and other old school games into the OSR as if they're trying to protect those systems from "modernity".

But at least now, we're clear: it's d20 based systems using the B/X aesthetic designed to be modally compatible with one another.

In order for it to be a useful marketing term it has to mean something.

Very rarely a generic term can be used to sell stuff, and even then you usually add the brand of the manufacturer to differentiate:

PC used to mean IBM, then the IBM compatible PC became a thing, then the compatible term was dropped, now you go buy a PC from brand X, but you're likely buying the brand not any PC will suffice.

So, for OSR to be a really useful marketing term it needs to mean something, if anything and everything can fit into the category then the category is useless.

After this many years and with the de-facto monopoly on-line allowing anything and everything into the category I wonder if it's not too late to even try and reclaim it for what it should be.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on May 26, 2024, 12:38:41 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 26, 2024, 12:32:33 PMAnyway, there's a whole chunk of players out there who, at least online, feel pretty homeless because we're not welcome at other places for not being Woke and aren't welcome here because we have no interest in bowing down to the self-proclaimed OSR high priests.

  Or as I sometimes put it, our options seem to be to bow down to the Great Dragon of Many Colors and of None worshipped by WotC, Paizo, and other big companies, or to smaller self-proclaimed golden calves in the OSR, BrOSR, etc. :)

  I also tend to think of "Old School" and "OSR" as a term of art for "roughly D&D-style play based on the game from 1974-1983", and use it in the same way one might refer to certain entities as "the Good People" or "the Fair Folk." :)

So, if you're not allowed to call your Charger a Ford you're not welcome in a car forum?

Worst still, there's no rule that would get you banned from here for saying that OpenD6 is OSR, you might get pushback but that's all.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AMUh huh. You go right on believing what your ego needs to; that your products are relevant enough for me to give the slightest thought to.

You can't hate something you don't even think about most days and when you do it's only because someone else brought it up and is pretending they're some defining voice of a movement instead of someone who flexes the definition of OSR every bit as much to suit their needs.

Ex. Invisible College is marketed as an OSR-ruleset, but is a modern world setting with significant rules differences from D&D... you can't just plug-and-play it into a B/X or AD&D campaign. It's not compatible out of the box. But you market it as OSR anyway.

So if even the guy who wants the term to be taken seriously doesn't treat the term seriously, why should anyone else?

So by your logic White Box FMAG isn't OSR either since it has several differences with D&D.

OSR = Compatible with 1974-1983 D&D with little to no conversion needed.

Now, what are those "significant rules differences from D&D"?

So, OSR as I understand it...

The short version is that an OSR product is compatible with early versions of D&D.  This came about, to my memory, starting in the early 2000s.

A more detailed explanation:

OD&D, AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, B/X, BECMI, and D&D Rules Cyclopedia were all different rules sets but could all use the same adventure modules.  (In my memory, B/X, BECMI, and Rules Cyclopedia were all the same rules with larger volumes containing more options but I've been informed there are differences.)

An adventure is OSR if it can be used with the above listed rules sets. 

OSR systems fall into three separate categories.  First are the clones; these are recreations of one of the above rules sets so that new players can play the original out-of-print game by simply getting a clone of the rules set they want.

The second are the "New Wave" OSR games.  These use the same core rules of one of the originals but use a different genre or some other element.  That makes it a different game play experience while maintaining the familiar mechanics.  Some of these are blended rules sets where rules and mechanics are cherry picked from the different versions of early D&D.  Some may include some original rules but should stay fairly faithful to the originals.

The third are what I've heard referred to as "designer" or "experimental" OSR systems.  These are games that has significant mechanical differences from any of the original games but are still fully compatible with the old TSR modules. 

I have heard some people try to put other games into the category.  The two I see most commonly are Tunnels and Trolls and Traveller.  These are old school games but they don't seem to fit the actual OSR groups were trying to do when I first encountered them about 2008 or so.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 26, 2024, 12:32:33 PMI don't play them. I don't run them. I don't see any offerings for them on the boards at my FLGS or their associated website.

I don't think about the OSR at all on my own. It only enters my brain when someone else brings it up and when they do I mostly just laugh to myself because it's invariably someone trying to make OneTrueWayist claims about a term practically defined by having no one with enough authority to define it.

I don't hate or love the OSR in the same way I don't hate or love what's living in the Deep Ocean. I do broadly get annoyed by OneTrueWayism, particularly when it insists on throwing away people who might agree with all of the problems in the modern RPG scene (that the Woke are intent on dividing and conquering and driving those who don't abide their insanity out entirely), but because they don't like random-stat generation or similar OSR-isms get decried as Woke puppets who want to destroy the hobby.

If you don't play what they say is the OSR way you're a garbage person who shouldn't even be in the hobby.

Never mind that their OneTrueWayist bullshit looks nothing like how I saw D&D actually played back in the day by the 12-15 year olds who actually played it. Random rolls only? Please. Outside of the retard who practically drove me from the hobby the norm in my area was arrange 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13 in whatever order you wanted and get max hit points and gold. If you got spells just put up to your limit for the level into your spellbook. Done.

That's because it was fun and you didn't have to waste any time making a new PC or have to worry about fudged dice or rolling multiple sets until you got something you wanted; put your six numbers in the order you wanted, pick a race/class (AD&D1e was the norm in these parts when I actually played), figure out your class stuff... back in the game.

Anyway, there's a whole chunk of players out there who, at least online, feel pretty homeless because we're not welcome at other places for not being Woke and aren't welcome here because we have no interest in bowing down to the self-proclaimed OSR high priests.

It's not healthy to hate though; hate is poison for the soul; which is why I just don't think of the OSR unless it's brought up here. Then I bring up the ridiculousness of the people who treat it as anything more than a marketing gimmick and get on with my day.

And most of the reason it is ridiculous is, again, OSR OneTrueWayists who lump anyone who doesn't worship their idol as belonging to the same group who are defined by their undying devotion to The Revolution and hatred for all that lives/exists... even as they insist on pushing their own Old School Revolution and hating on and ostracizing the unbelievers.

That's a whole lot of words to say "Yep, guilty as charged."

Thank goodness we have someone who doesn't like or play OSR games here to police the language we use to talk about them...

I'd prefer to have OSR just mean "based on TSR-era D&D". Much broader and the definition stops being useful. Much narrower, and it risks throttling innovation rather than encouraging it.

I think Pundit and others might have actually shot themselves in the foot by framing the OSR as a movement or scene, setting itself in opposition to other gaming scenes, rather than as just a rules framework. A movement/scene carries with it a certain social cachet which inevitably encourages entryists to try and widen the definition in order to fit themselves in and reap the social or commercial benefits.

I think Tenbones had the right idea above. Let "old school gaming" be the scene, and OSR be the rules framework, and try to keep the two distinct in usage. That way classic Runequest or whatever players can say they like old school gaming, but not OSR games, and everyone knows what they mean.

QuoteThe reason why the core mechanics are so important is compatibility. Compatibility is a central feature of the OSR's success; where you can take any two OSR books, by different authors, even in different genres, and you can with the absolute minimum of effort plug stuff from one book into the other totally different book.

If people get to start claiming their D6 dicepool game is OSR, that compatibility is lost

Sure, but that's the thing, I can still easily imagine a d6 dice pool OSR game based on B/X D&D and which is entirely compatible with TSR era modules and content with maybe some mild on the fly tweaks needed to be made by GMs.

Even your RPGs are not 1-to-1 TSR Equivalents, they handle a number of procedures different, I cannot for example drop any TSR-era class into lion & dragon and accept it to run perfectly smoothly, it would work I guess but the way they level and progress and the scale of that would be entirely off with the rest of the game, they'd have different saves, magic, etc.

so again I find this argument poppycock.

Look ma, it's the No True OSR fallacy! ;)

Quote from: tenbones on May 26, 2024, 12:35:28 PMSo there should be a new marketing term - OSG (Old School Game) which comprises all non-d20 based games from that era?

I'd rather use OSG (Old School Gaming) for the people that play the original D&D games (OD&D, B/X, BECMI and 1E) as opposed to OSR games.

I'm not much into early D&D anymore, but I prefer the more narrow, useful version of OSR that assumes it is both old school in spirit and compatible mechanically with those games. Narrow definitions are useful to people inside and out.  When I describe my preferred game as old school in spirit but not compatible mechanically (i.e. not OSR but near it in spirit) then that says something fairly clear.  Or it would if people didn't latch onto descriptions as a branding technique instead of description.

It boils down to some people want clarity and some people want to deliberately muddy the waters and some people don't care if the waters are clear or muddy as long as they can be in the clique.  I never much saw the point of watering down something just so that I could say that I belonged to it.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 26, 2024, 03:34:59 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 26, 2024, 12:32:33 PMI don't play them. I don't run them. I don't see any offerings for them on the boards at my FLGS or their associated website.

I don't think about the OSR at all on my own. It only enters my brain when someone else brings it up and when they do I mostly just laugh to myself because it's invariably someone trying to make OneTrueWayist claims about a term practically defined by having no one with enough authority to define it.

I don't hate or love the OSR in the same way I don't hate or love what's living in the Deep Ocean. I do broadly get annoyed by OneTrueWayism, particularly when it insists on throwing away people who might agree with all of the problems in the modern RPG scene (that the Woke are intent on dividing and conquering and driving those who don't abide their insanity out entirely), but because they don't like random-stat generation or similar OSR-isms get decried as Woke puppets who want to destroy the hobby.

If you don't play what they say is the OSR way you're a garbage person who shouldn't even be in the hobby.

Never mind that their OneTrueWayist bullshit looks nothing like how I saw D&D actually played back in the day by the 12-15 year olds who actually played it. Random rolls only? Please. Outside of the retard who practically drove me from the hobby the norm in my area was arrange 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13 in whatever order you wanted and get max hit points and gold. If you got spells just put up to your limit for the level into your spellbook. Done.

That's because it was fun and you didn't have to waste any time making a new PC or have to worry about fudged dice or rolling multiple sets until you got something you wanted; put your six numbers in the order you wanted, pick a race/class (AD&D1e was the norm in these parts when I actually played), figure out your class stuff... back in the game.

Anyway, there's a whole chunk of players out there who, at least online, feel pretty homeless because we're not welcome at other places for not being Woke and aren't welcome here because we have no interest in bowing down to the self-proclaimed OSR high priests.

It's not healthy to hate though; hate is poison for the soul; which is why I just don't think of the OSR unless it's brought up here. Then I bring up the ridiculousness of the people who treat it as anything more than a marketing gimmick and get on with my day.

And most of the reason it is ridiculous is, again, OSR OneTrueWayists who lump anyone who doesn't worship their idol as belonging to the same group who are defined by their undying devotion to The Revolution and hatred for all that lives/exists... even as they insist on pushing their own Old School Revolution and hating on and ostracizing the unbelievers.

That's a whole lot of words to say "Yep, guilty as charged."

Thank goodness we have someone who doesn't like or play OSR games here to police the language we use to talk about them...

Show me where it says you have to like or play something to be able to comment... or are you going to stop shitting all over, say, 4E every time something from it comes up?

You're so far up your own ass you don't actually see you've just become the mirror image of the Woke; hating on anything that doesn't align with your worldview and assigning malign motives to any who disagree.

Which, again, is why the OSR as a movement/scene is and will always be ridiculous. The movement/scene is everything it professes to hate.

No one would feel this way if it was just being treated as a ruleset. People can like or dislike rulesets for a wide variety of valid reasons, but when you make something a movement, then you need your gatekeeping and exclusion and any who dissent can't have different preferences... they're actually having BadWrongFun if they don't embrace the movement... just like the Woke from the other direction.

Pathetic.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 26, 2024, 08:44:05 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 26, 2024, 03:34:59 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 26, 2024, 12:32:33 PMI don't play them. I don't run them. I don't see any offerings for them on the boards at my FLGS or their associated website.

I don't think about the OSR at all on my own. It only enters my brain when someone else brings it up and when they do I mostly just laugh to myself because it's invariably someone trying to make OneTrueWayist claims about a term practically defined by having no one with enough authority to define it.

I don't hate or love the OSR in the same way I don't hate or love what's living in the Deep Ocean. I do broadly get annoyed by OneTrueWayism, particularly when it insists on throwing away people who might agree with all of the problems in the modern RPG scene (that the Woke are intent on dividing and conquering and driving those who don't abide their insanity out entirely), but because they don't like random-stat generation or similar OSR-isms get decried as Woke puppets who want to destroy the hobby.

If you don't play what they say is the OSR way you're a garbage person who shouldn't even be in the hobby.

Never mind that their OneTrueWayist bullshit looks nothing like how I saw D&D actually played back in the day by the 12-15 year olds who actually played it. Random rolls only? Please. Outside of the retard who practically drove me from the hobby the norm in my area was arrange 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13 in whatever order you wanted and get max hit points and gold. If you got spells just put up to your limit for the level into your spellbook. Done.

That's because it was fun and you didn't have to waste any time making a new PC or have to worry about fudged dice or rolling multiple sets until you got something you wanted; put your six numbers in the order you wanted, pick a race/class (AD&D1e was the norm in these parts when I actually played), figure out your class stuff... back in the game.

Anyway, there's a whole chunk of players out there who, at least online, feel pretty homeless because we're not welcome at other places for not being Woke and aren't welcome here because we have no interest in bowing down to the self-proclaimed OSR high priests.

It's not healthy to hate though; hate is poison for the soul; which is why I just don't think of the OSR unless it's brought up here. Then I bring up the ridiculousness of the people who treat it as anything more than a marketing gimmick and get on with my day.

And most of the reason it is ridiculous is, again, OSR OneTrueWayists who lump anyone who doesn't worship their idol as belonging to the same group who are defined by their undying devotion to The Revolution and hatred for all that lives/exists... even as they insist on pushing their own Old School Revolution and hating on and ostracizing the unbelievers.

That's a whole lot of words to say "Yep, guilty as charged."

Thank goodness we have someone who doesn't like or play OSR games here to police the language we use to talk about them...

Show me where it says you have to like or play something to be able to comment... or are you going to stop shitting all over, say, 4E every time something from it comes up?

You're so far up your own ass you don't actually see you've just become the mirror image of the Woke; hating on anything that doesn't align with your worldview and assigning malign motives to any who disagree.

Which, again, is why the OSR as a movement/scene is and will always be ridiculous. The movement/scene is everything it professes to hate.

No one would feel this way if it was just being treated as a ruleset. People can like or dislike rulesets for a wide variety of valid reasons, but when you make something a movement, then you need your gatekeeping and exclusion and any who dissent can't have different preferences... they're actually having BadWrongFun if they don't embrace the movement... just like the Woke from the other direction.

Pathetic.

Be careful.  IMAX is liable to sue you for violating their patents on massive projection.  No one has told anyone here that they are "playing it wrong."  You're doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing, hating on anything that doesn't fit your narrow worldview and opinions.

Pathetic

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:47:59 AMBecause point-buy leads to extreme min-maxing and "charbuild optimization", which turns out to be contrary to compatibiilty. Having randomly-rolled ability scores, and not being able to "purchase" skills or feat to taste, means that compatibility is maintained.

How does min-maxing and optimization break OSR compatibility? OSR games have never been finely balanced like the 4e style wargames. Having a character with optimized stats isn't going to break the game any more than rolling an extraordinarily strong character would. I agree that it breaks with the spirit of OSR to some degree, but I don't see where it breaks mechanical compatibility.

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:49:22 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 25, 2024, 10:31:21 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 25, 2024, 09:59:54 AMI can't speak for the OP but I don't think point buy (or skills, or feats, or combat maneuvers) is in any way incompatible to the OSR.

When I say "compatibility with TSR" I do not mean theoretically, I'm actually running classic TSR modules and I don't want to do much conversion during the game. I also use old school monster manuals and encounter tables. This all despite of not running any TSR game (I use my own retroclone, Dark Fantasy Basic).

Of course, there are few "hard lines", since TSR contains many variations: roll high, roll low, 1d20, 2d6, 1d100, additional abilities (comeliness), race as class or separated, sci-fi aspects and entire games, NWP, WP, etc.

But the more conversion you need the farther you are.

Here is a curious example from Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/1d06tya/can_anyone_weigh_in_on_whether_our_game_is_osr_or/

Old school is comprised of more than just older TSR games. A tweaked clone of Traveler qualifies as old school IMHO.

Old School, definitely. OSR, no. OSR is based on D&D. As I pointed out, Traveller has its own third-party old-school movement these days, and that's great. But it is its own separate thing.

Why?

I know you feel obligated to repeat this often, but what benefit is there in isolating the OSR from any other game system that came out during that time? Why does it have to be D&D based only? is this some kind of One True Wayism for you? I ask, because this honestly looks like you are trying to protect some kind of marketing brand recognition you find in the acronym OSR.

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 01:01:00 AMWhy?

I know you feel obligated to repeat this often, but what benefit is there in isolating the OSR from any other game system that came out during that time? Why does it have to be D&D based only? is this some kind of One True Wayism for you? I ask, because this honestly looks like you are trying to protect some kind of marketing brand recognition you find in the acronym OSR.

OSR just means "based on and broadly compatible with TSR era D&D". If I buy an OSR product, and it's actually basically Warhammer Fantasy, I'm not going to be happy because that's not what OSR means. It's not just a marketing term, its informative.

And yes, I know people call Zweihander OSR, they're wrong.

OSR, as a product descriptor, should tell me something about the product being described.  If I am browsing through DTRPG and come across a product labeled OSR, that should tell me something substantive and useful about what the product is.  If it refers to one of several different, not compatible games that fall under the nebulous category of old school games, then it utterly fails to fulfill its basic function.  It doesn't actually tell me anything about the product it is being used to describe.  There needs to be some way to determine what is and, more importantly, is not an OSR product.  Otherwise, OSR as a category is meaningless and OSR as a product descriptor is completely worthless.     

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 27, 2024, 05:47:38 AMIf it refers to one of several different, not compatible games that fall under the nebulous category of old school games, then it utterly fails to fulfill its basic function.  It doesn't actually tell me anything about the product it is being used to describe.

Well, it tells us at least one thing: that the author of the game is concerned with whether or not their game fits into a category. Which itself might be enough information.

Quote from: Zalman on May 27, 2024, 06:55:25 AMWell, it tells us at least one thing: that the author of the game is concerned with whether or not their game fits into a category. Which itself might be enough information.

It's information.  It's not particularly useful information.  It's completely useless if I am trying to determine whether this product labeled OSR will be of any real use in the OSRIC game I am running or not.  This is the sort of thing that people looking at a product labeled OSR actually need to know.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 26, 2024, 09:44:09 PMPathetic

I was 50/50 on whether you were going to just repeat my closer or go with "I know you are, but what am I?"

Thank you for answering that.

Ah, projection... making claims and assigning malicious motives to others... just like the woke. Thank you for proving my point.

As for me, I have accomplished my purpose; others are now remarking on the various ridiculous aspects of OSR as a movement/scene and it's uselessness as a search term when the only relevant gatekeeper (DriveThru) lets any retroclone of an older game use the search term.

People are asking questions. Good questions. Why can't a ruleset use dice pools or point buy attributes and be OSR so long as the old modules can still be used with those rulesets? Why must it only refer to D&D and not use some other term for that compatibility?

So, having said my piece and gotten some talking started, I can depart. I might come back if the the topic drifts enough that I feel there's something different worth adding, but for now I'll leave you the last word since clearly you need it so badly.

Thank you again for proving you're exactly who I thought you were.

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 27, 2024, 07:17:55 AMIt's information.  It's not particularly useful information.  It's completely useless if I am trying to determine whether this product labeled OSR will be of any real use in the OSRIC game I am running or not.  This is the sort of thing that people looking at a product labeled OSR actually need to know.

OSR as a term has always been useless in that regard. And those who try to rely on it as a marketing term are not getting any benefits (or downside for that matter) from doing that. Instead, from day one, is about specifics, whether it is gonzo, weird fantasy, gygaxian D&D, megadungeons, sandbox campaigns, Stars Without Number, OSRIC, Labyrinth Lords, Black Hack, Mork Borg, Shadow Dark, Old School Essentials, Swords & Wizardry, and so on.

If you look at those who have been successful, their marketing focuses on their brand or the specific theme like the author of the OP does with "authentic medieval or as I do with sandbox campaigns and hexcrawl formatted settings.

Where OSR is useful is in conversations like this one. Where it acts as a shorthand in place of writing "the group of hobbyists and publishers using the themes and mechanics of the classic editions of dungeons and dragons". Since I use the themes and mechanics of the classic editions, I often use OSR in conversations about my stuff. But I don't rely on using it as part of my marketing.

So the reason for this complexity and these nuances is because the the OSR as a whole is founded on a simple idea, that you can take the open content of the d20 SRD omit the newer mechanics and the result is but a hop and a skip from a particular classic edition.

Because this started out with open content it meant folks taking advantage of this advantage can pursue whatever creative itch they want. Some chose to hold close to a particular edition and make retro-clone. Some used them to focus on a particular theme like gonzo, weird fantasy, or gygaxian D&D.

A lot of folks saw the classic editions as obsolete and broken. Along with certain styles of campaigns and adventure types like the Adventure Path had the attention of the larger hobby. But over time the modest success of those publishing and sharing material based on the mechanics and themes of classic D&D or OSR showed otherwise.

Unlike other RPGs whose IP were controlled with a iron grip by an individual or company, newcomers didn't have to seek the permission of existing OSR publisher to realize their own creative agenda. So, over time, the quantity and types of products published within the OSR continued to grow.

Along with that came more experience in the legal issues surrounding the use of classic edition mechanics. This resulted in an expanding number of related but sufficiently different RPGs being released by those interested in classic editions themes and mechanics. Folks like Kevin Crawford repurposed some of the classic edition mechanics into very different RPGs like Stars without Numbers.

The end result is a kaleidoscope of works under the OSR umbrella. There aren't two types of OSR; instead, there are a multitude of OSRs, each reflecting the creative quirks of the author or authors involved. The Pundit YouTube video just reflects his own bias in the quest to market his works and should be ignored. Except if you like the Pundit's stuff then pay attention to what he likes and recommends.

Or in your case go over to Dragonsfoot or Knights and Knaves where many of the folks who worked on OSRIC hang out and see what they recommend.

This is the real solution. Contact or read up the authors you like and see what their recommendations are for the stuff you like. Do not try to figure out who and what is operating under what label. I get that a lot of folks find this confusing or irritating but that just how this niche of the hobby works.

I do find it amusing the folks who have no problem navigating the RPG/Storygame divide (or the rules-light/crunchy divide) are suddenly baffled by the term "OSR."  It's not like there is a hard and fast line between any of these terms (heck, you could argue the line between wargame and RPG gets pretty close, too... looking at you, Mechwarrior/Battletech).  People bitching about the use of OSR somehow manage to figure all the other terms and separations out.  It is, as estar points out, partly a case of personal preference.  MSH might not be a "story" game to me, even with its use of karma, while BitD might.  It's all in where you (as an individual) draw the line.

I will say that I find the more restrictive interpretations of the term more useful, at least in terms of categorization.  But, I don't select games to preview because they are labeled "OSR," any more than I avoid other games because of what they are labeled.  Having "OSR" as an indicator of general compatibility with an early version of D&D conveys the most information, so I prefer that definition.  That hasn't stopped me from checking out (and liking) Kevin Crawford's stuff.  I'm working on my own game with some OSR sensibilities, but, as it is a dice pool game, I'd never market it as OSR.  You'd get customers who would feel misled, even though I think it's closer to the feel of the way D&D played in the eighties than an abomination like D&D 4e (hat tip to Chris).

So, yeah, I think that most of the complaining on here is based around people who don't like the OSR and adjacent games trying to either sabotage the term or trying broaden it to coopt it.  So, who cares what they think... they don't play OSR games anyway...

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 26, 2024, 08:44:26 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:53:18 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 02:25:23 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on May 25, 2024, 02:01:04 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 25, 2024, 10:48:07 AMPeople can't even agree on what the "R" means. Pundit is now trying to claim it as two separate types, but there's way more than just Revival and Renaissance; I've heard everything from Rules to Revolution also used as the R.

I still think "Ruckus" is the most accurate descriptor I've ever heard applied. :)

You're NOT wrong.

I largely think of it as a solution in search of a problem; an attempt to create a marketing niche for something better served by more strict comparability notices. "Compatible with B/X" or "works with Traveler" or "Compatible with the first advanced edition of the world's most popular RPG" are all more useful than the term OSR has ever been.

Spoken like someone who is angry that 2nd and 3rd wave OSR products exist and are hugely successful.

Uh huh. You go right on believing what your ego needs to; that your products are relevant enough for me to give the slightest thought to.

You can't hate something you don't even think about most days and when you do it's only because someone else brought it up and is pretending they're some defining voice of a movement instead of someone who flexes the definition of OSR every bit as much to suit their needs.

Ex. Invisible College is marketed as an OSR-ruleset, but is a modern world setting with significant rules differences from D&D... you can't just plug-and-play it into a B/X or AD&D campaign. It's not compatible out of the box. But you market it as OSR anyway.

So if even the guy who wants the term to be taken seriously doesn't treat the term seriously, why should anyone else?

That's a boldfaced lie. First, the OSR can cover a vast variety of genres, that's not relevant to the definition of whether a game is OSR or not. The core rules of Invisible College are the OSR rules. It has the six stats, saving throws, armor class, hit points, the core combat system, classes, levels, etc.

You can literally take the magic system of the Invisible College, the most different part of the game to standard D&D, remove the D&D spell system and replace it as a magic system for whatever other OSR product you are using.

As far as relevance, here you are, on MY website, on MY thread, talking about MY games, which number more DTRPG bestsellers than most other game designers, and at a time when I've just had the top selling RPG on DTRPG for a solid month.
On the other hand, I have no clue who you are. And no one else does either.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 26, 2024, 12:32:33 PMNever mind that their OneTrueWayist bullshit looks nothing like how I saw D&D actually played back in the day by the 12-15 year olds who actually played it. Random rolls only? Please. Outside of the retard who practically drove me from the hobby the norm in my area was arrange 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13 in whatever order you wanted and get max hit points and gold. If you got spells just put up to your limit for the level into your spellbook. Done.

Was "your area" the Special Olympics? Because in every place I gamed in the original era of TSR D&D, what you describe was the exclusive realm of the local autistic retards who were never invited to anyone's table, and would in some of said places have gotten a savage beating just for suggesting that kind of powergamer nonsense.

Quote from: ForgottenF on May 26, 2024, 04:41:54 PMI'd prefer to have OSR just mean "based on TSR-era D&D". Much broader and the definition stops being useful. Much narrower, and it risks throttling innovation rather than encouraging it.

I think Pundit and others might have actually shot themselves in the foot by framing the OSR as a movement or scene, setting itself in opposition to other gaming scenes, rather than as just a rules framework. A movement/scene carries with it a certain social cachet which inevitably encourages entryists to try and widen the definition in order to fit themselves in and reap the social or commercial benefits.

I think Tenbones had the right idea above. Let "old school gaming" be the scene, and OSR be the rules framework, and try to keep the two distinct in usage. That way classic Runequest or whatever players can say they like old school gaming, but not OSR games, and everyone knows what they mean.

There is obviously issues with the defining of OSR, in that it will lead to attempted entryism, for sure. That's the downside of making a defined design movement, you have to fight to keep it from being subverted.

But the downside of not doing so is that you have no definition at all, and then "OSR" would be claimed on the one hand by people who want to demand that we play nothing but remakes of "Keep on the borderlands" forever (which would quickly make the OSR utterly useless and irrelevant), or on the other hand by people claiming that their point-buy dice-pool story-points RPG is "OSR" because they FEEL like it is, which would mean that OSR would mean nothing at all.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 26, 2024, 04:53:28 PM

QuoteThe reason why the core mechanics are so important is compatibility. Compatibility is a central feature of the OSR's success; where you can take any two OSR books, by different authors, even in different genres, and you can with the absolute minimum of effort plug stuff from one book into the other totally different book.

If people get to start claiming their D6 dicepool game is OSR, that compatibility is lost

Sure, but that's the thing, I can still easily imagine a d6 dice pool OSR game based on B/X D&D and which is entirely compatible with TSR era modules and content with maybe some mild on the fly tweaks needed to be made by GMs.

Even your RPGs are not 1-to-1 TSR Equivalents, they handle a number of procedures different, I cannot for example drop any TSR-era class into lion & dragon and accept it to run perfectly smoothly, it would work I guess but the way they level and progress and the scale of that would be entirely off with the rest of the game, they'd have different saves, magic, etc.

so again I find this argument poppycock.

You are doing a motte and bailey argument here. You're saying that because my games have a single-value Saving Throw roll (with individual bonuses to save vs types of challenges) instead of "Save vs paralysis/poison/wands/dragon breath/spells" that means its the same as someone making a dice pool game where the absolute core mechanics would work NOTHING like D&D does.
If instead of rolling D20s to hit, with modifiers from combat bonus and ability score modifiers you had a variable dice pool that counted successes, you would have to massively revise everything to make some TSR module (or LotFP, ACKS or whatever) fit. Whereas with just about anything from L&D or my other games you would just have to pick whether you wanted my version of the rule or the other version.
It's not in any way the same.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 26, 2024, 06:50:38 PMI'm not much into early D&D anymore, but I prefer the more narrow, useful version of OSR that assumes it is both old school in spirit and compatible mechanically with those games. Narrow definitions are useful to people inside and out.  When I describe my preferred game as old school in spirit but not compatible mechanically (i.e. not OSR but near it in spirit) then that says something fairly clear. 

What that statement would say to me is that you either chose to publish a book that won't call itself OSR and therefore likely sell less, or that you will call it OSR and therefore engage in what is essentially deceptive advertising.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 26, 2024, 08:44:05 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 26, 2024, 03:34:59 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 26, 2024, 12:32:33 PMI don't play them. I don't run them. I don't see any offerings for them on the boards at my FLGS or their associated website.

I don't think about the OSR at all on my own. It only enters my brain when someone else brings it up and when they do I mostly just laugh to myself because it's invariably someone trying to make OneTrueWayist claims about a term practically defined by having no one with enough authority to define it.

I don't hate or love the OSR in the same way I don't hate or love what's living in the Deep Ocean. I do broadly get annoyed by OneTrueWayism, particularly when it insists on throwing away people who might agree with all of the problems in the modern RPG scene (that the Woke are intent on dividing and conquering and driving those who don't abide their insanity out entirely), but because they don't like random-stat generation or similar OSR-isms get decried as Woke puppets who want to destroy the hobby.

If you don't play what they say is the OSR way you're a garbage person who shouldn't even be in the hobby.

Never mind that their OneTrueWayist bullshit looks nothing like how I saw D&D actually played back in the day by the 12-15 year olds who actually played it. Random rolls only? Please. Outside of the retard who practically drove me from the hobby the norm in my area was arrange 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13 in whatever order you wanted and get max hit points and gold. If you got spells just put up to your limit for the level into your spellbook. Done.

That's because it was fun and you didn't have to waste any time making a new PC or have to worry about fudged dice or rolling multiple sets until you got something you wanted; put your six numbers in the order you wanted, pick a race/class (AD&D1e was the norm in these parts when I actually played), figure out your class stuff... back in the game.

Anyway, there's a whole chunk of players out there who, at least online, feel pretty homeless because we're not welcome at other places for not being Woke and aren't welcome here because we have no interest in bowing down to the self-proclaimed OSR high priests.

It's not healthy to hate though; hate is poison for the soul; which is why I just don't think of the OSR unless it's brought up here. Then I bring up the ridiculousness of the people who treat it as anything more than a marketing gimmick and get on with my day.

And most of the reason it is ridiculous is, again, OSR OneTrueWayists who lump anyone who doesn't worship their idol as belonging to the same group who are defined by their undying devotion to The Revolution and hatred for all that lives/exists... even as they insist on pushing their own Old School Revolution and hating on and ostracizing the unbelievers.

That's a whole lot of words to say "Yep, guilty as charged."

Thank goodness we have someone who doesn't like or play OSR games here to police the language we use to talk about them...

Show me where it says you have to like or play something to be able to comment... or are you going to stop shitting all over, say, 4E every time something from it comes up?

You're so far up your own ass you don't actually see you've just become the mirror image of the Woke; hating on anything that doesn't align with your worldview and assigning malign motives to any who disagree.

Which, again, is why the OSR as a movement/scene is and will always be ridiculous. The movement/scene is everything it professes to hate.

No one would feel this way if it was just being treated as a ruleset. People can like or dislike rulesets for a wide variety of valid reasons, but when you make something a movement, then you need your gatekeeping and exclusion and any who dissent can't have different preferences... they're actually having BadWrongFun if they don't embrace the movement... just like the Woke from the other direction.

Pathetic.

The only "gatekeeping" in the OSR is trying to actually stop hucksters from calling their products OSR when they are not.

And posting in a thread that is about an internal discussion about the definition of the OSR when you don't play OSR games and have stated that you hate the OSR and its game is very likely to be in the margins of thread-derailment, unless the thread was about why people hate the OSR, which this thread is not.
When we're discussing the definition of what the OSR is, to come onto the thread mainly to say that you despise the OSR is not a productive contribution.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on May 27, 2024, 12:54:07 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:47:59 AMBecause point-buy leads to extreme min-maxing and "charbuild optimization", which turns out to be contrary to compatibiilty. Having randomly-rolled ability scores, and not being able to "purchase" skills or feat to taste, means that compatibility is maintained.

How does min-maxing and optimization break OSR compatibility? OSR games have never been finely balanced like the 4e style wargames. Having a character with optimized stats isn't going to break the game any more than rolling an extraordinarily strong character would. I agree that it breaks with the spirit of OSR to some degree, but I don't see where it breaks mechanical compatibility.

It alters the nature of the OSR design, where virtually all OSR games assume random generation. It could depend of course, on just how extreme the point-buy structure goes, if you have say a relatively simple system of basic skills that you assign not at random but by dividing a number of points among those skills, it would still be at odds with most of the OSR products but could likely be accommodated. But if the point-buy mechanic included ability scores, which would thus generate either a wide variety of average ability scores or an extreme of unusually high and unusually low min-maxing of ability scores, that has an effect on all the other mechanics of the game. Likewise if point-buy special abilities ("benefits & drawbacks", feats, or whatever) were introduced in a game in a way that it has actual significance to the gameplay (ie. you couldn't just say "we won't use these"), that would be extremely likely to damage compatibility.

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 01:01:00 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:49:22 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 25, 2024, 10:31:21 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 25, 2024, 09:59:54 AMI can't speak for the OP but I don't think point buy (or skills, or feats, or combat maneuvers) is in any way incompatible to the OSR.

When I say "compatibility with TSR" I do not mean theoretically, I'm actually running classic TSR modules and I don't want to do much conversion during the game. I also use old school monster manuals and encounter tables. This all despite of not running any TSR game (I use my own retroclone, Dark Fantasy Basic).

Of course, there are few "hard lines", since TSR contains many variations: roll high, roll low, 1d20, 2d6, 1d100, additional abilities (comeliness), race as class or separated, sci-fi aspects and entire games, NWP, WP, etc.

But the more conversion you need the farther you are.

Here is a curious example from Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/1d06tya/can_anyone_weigh_in_on_whether_our_game_is_osr_or/

Old school is comprised of more than just older TSR games. A tweaked clone of Traveler qualifies as old school IMHO.

Old School, definitely. OSR, no. OSR is based on D&D. As I pointed out, Traveller has its own third-party old-school movement these days, and that's great. But it is its own separate thing.

Why?

I know you feel obligated to repeat this often, but what benefit is there in isolating the OSR from any other game system that came out during that time? Why does it have to be D&D based only? is this some kind of One True Wayism for you? I ask, because this honestly looks like you are trying to protect some kind of marketing brand recognition you find in the acronym OSR.

In my video I already pointed out that for the OSR to mean anything actually concrete it has to be understood as a design school. That's what the OSR has really been at least since the release of LotFP (while before that it was just a reproduction of old editions and some new modules for those old editions). In order to be a design school, it has to have a framework, and that framework has to be the rules (any other framework, like genre or aesthetics would almost immediately be watered down into meaninglessness).
So you have say "the OSR is a box, within which you can be as creative as you like, but if you break outside the landmarks of that box, it is not OSR". That box is the D&D rules. You could have another box that is The Traveller Rules, or the Fantasy Trip rules, or T&T rules, or whatever. But you can't just say "that box is any old school game" or you do not in fact have a real framework.

It's like you're asking "why can't you say that impressionism is part of neo-classicism"? It's not a question of some kind of judgment, or claiming you can't appreciate both, it's just saying that the rules to create one are different from the rules to create the other.   

Quote from: Zalman on May 27, 2024, 06:55:25 AM

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 27, 2024, 05:47:38 AMIf it refers to one of several different, not compatible games that fall under the nebulous category of old school games, then it utterly fails to fulfill its basic function.  It doesn't actually tell me anything about the product it is being used to describe.

Well, it tells us at least one thing: that the author of the game is concerned with whether or not their game fits into a category. Which itself might be enough information.

There's a huge difference between an author who wants to make sure that his game is considered within a category and therefore makes a game that actually fits in the standards of that category, and an author who wants his game to make more money and therefore falsely claims that his product is in a popular category that would sell better.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 27, 2024, 07:33:25 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 26, 2024, 09:44:09 PMPathetic

I was 50/50 on whether you were going to just repeat my closer or go with "I know you are, but what am I?"

Thank you for answering that.

Ah, projection... making claims and assigning malicious motives to others... just like the woke. Thank you for proving my point.

As for me, I have accomplished my purpose; others are now remarking on the various ridiculous aspects of OSR as a movement/scene and it's uselessness as a search term when the only relevant gatekeeper (DriveThru) lets any retroclone of an older game use the search term.

People are asking questions. Good questions. Why can't a ruleset use dice pools or point buy attributes and be OSR so long as the old modules can still be used with those rulesets? Why must it only refer to D&D and not use some other term for that compatibility?

So, having said my piece and gotten some talking started, I can depart. I might come back if the the topic drifts enough that I feel there's something different worth adding, but for now I'll leave you the last word since clearly you need it so badly.

Thank you again for proving you're exactly who I thought you were.

No, I don't think you can come back to this thread actually, since you've basically admitted to thread derailing. If you post again in this thread, or ANY thread on the subject of the OSR (unless its a thread explicitly about hating on the OSR) you will be banned.

Quote from: tenbones on May 26, 2024, 12:35:28 PMSo there should be a new marketing term - OSG (Old School Game) which comprises all non-d20 based games from that era?

I like that the discussion about WHAT the OSR is continues to happen, because it will finally crystalize, whether it means its "just" a marketing term or, finally, into a mutually understood term that encompasses a specific ruleset. It used to make my teeth itch when people would lump d6, FASERIP, and other old school games into the OSR as if they're trying to protect those systems from "modernity".

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:49:22 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 25, 2024, 10:31:21 AMOld school is comprised of more than just older TSR games. A tweaked clone of Traveler qualifies as old school IMHO.

Old School, definitely. OSR, no. OSR is based on D&D. As I pointed out, Traveller has its own third-party old-school movement these days, and that's great. But it is its own separate thing.

The core issue here is games like Call of Cthulhu, Champions, Marvel Superheroes, Paranoia, James Bond 007, and Toon have very little in common with each other or with BX D&D - except that they're all from over 40 years ago.

I feel it doesn't make sense to call any of them "modern" or "new school" since they're over 40 years old. But lumping them together under "old school" would mean that the term is largely meaningless.

I think it makes more sense to describe games in terms of design features rather than old/new.

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 27, 2024, 10:59:08 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 01:01:00 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:49:22 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 25, 2024, 10:31:21 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 25, 2024, 09:59:54 AMI can't speak for the OP but I don't think point buy (or skills, or feats, or combat maneuvers) is in any way incompatible to the OSR.

When I say "compatibility with TSR" I do not mean theoretically, I'm actually running classic TSR modules and I don't want to do much conversion during the game. I also use old school monster manuals and encounter tables. This all despite of not running any TSR game (I use my own retroclone, Dark Fantasy Basic).

Of course, there are few "hard lines", since TSR contains many variations: roll high, roll low, 1d20, 2d6, 1d100, additional abilities (comeliness), race as class or separated, sci-fi aspects and entire games, NWP, WP, etc.

But the more conversion you need the farther you are.

Here is a curious example from Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/1d06tya/can_anyone_weigh_in_on_whether_our_game_is_osr_or/

Old school is comprised of more than just older TSR games. A tweaked clone of Traveler qualifies as old school IMHO.

Old School, definitely. OSR, no. OSR is based on D&D. As I pointed out, Traveller has its own third-party old-school movement these days, and that's great. But it is its own separate thing.

Why?

I know you feel obligated to repeat this often, but what benefit is there in isolating the OSR from any other game system that came out during that time? Why does it have to be D&D based only? is this some kind of One True Wayism for you? I ask, because this honestly looks like you are trying to protect some kind of marketing brand recognition you find in the acronym OSR.

In my video I already pointed out that for the OSR to mean anything actually concrete it has to be understood as a design school. That's what the OSR has really been at least since the release of LotFP (while before that it was just a reproduction of old editions and some new modules for those old editions). In order to be a design school, it has to have a framework, and that framework has to be the rules (any other framework, like genre or aesthetics would almost immediately be watered down into meaninglessness).
So you have say "the OSR is a box, within which you can be as creative as you like, but if you break outside the landmarks of that box, it is not OSR". That box is the D&D rules. You could have another box that is The Traveller Rules, or the Fantasy Trip rules, or T&T rules, or whatever. But you can't just say "that box is any old school game" or you do not in fact have a real framework.

It's like you're asking "why can't you say that impressionism is part of neo-classicism"? It's not a question of some kind of judgment, or claiming you can't appreciate both, it's just saying that the rules to create one are different from the rules to create the other.   

OK, so for a game to be OSR to you, it must be a slight variance of the D&D rules. Therefore d20 Traveller, a Traveller variant based upon slight modifications to D&D rules, is OSR. True or false?

Now, I'm bringing this up because one of the hallmarks of the OSR (at least in the beginning) was that the movement championed a DIY approach to gaming, a belief in rulings not rules, and player characters engaging with the setting instead of just pitting their numbers against the setting. None of which demands that the game be based on D&D.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 26, 2024, 02:22:34 PMSo, if you're not allowed to call your Charger a Ford you're not welcome in a car forum?

Worst still, there's no rule that would get you banned from here for saying that OpenD6 is OSR, you might get pushback but that's all.

  Clarification: I was referring to general trends in overall hobby discussion, not this specific topic or specific site. My apologies for being unspecific.

   As for OSR, I'm fine leaving that for the "Gygaxian D&D family of games", and even 'Old School' for the same, so long as the latter is treated as a term of art and not a literal "how everybody played D&D and all other RPGs before the Dark Times (usually defined as somewhere between Tunnels & Trolls and 2E, with Dragonlance being the most common cutoff)." :)

There's a few posts in here that make a reasonably postmodernist mistake.  "The colors are on a spectrum; therefore red and blue are the same". 

The existence of an exactly fixed border isn't needed for there to be clear distinctions.  Is some non-D&D game with immense pedigree in the same category as a B/X mostly-clone from 2012?  Nope.  Can you find a bunch of intermediate games to confuse the issue?  Sure.  Does that matter?  Again, no.

Quote from: Venka on May 27, 2024, 12:19:26 PMThere's a few posts in here that make a reasonably postmodernist mistake.  "The colors are on a spectrum; therefore red and blue are the same". 

The existence of an exactly fixed border isn't needed for there to be clear distinctions.  Is some non-D&D game with immense pedigree in the same category as a B/X mostly-clone from 2012?  Nope.  Can you find a bunch of intermediate games to confuse the issue?  Sure.  Does that matter?  Again, no.

This. Reminds me of the rejoinder I've heard against a similar argument in a different sphere. The only reason you can find fuzzy edge cases that challenge the line is because you know there is a line and where it is. if there was no line, there wouldn't be these edge cases to argue about in the first place.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on May 27, 2024, 02:09:15 PM

Quote from: Venka on May 27, 2024, 12:19:26 PMThere's a few posts in here that make a reasonably postmodernist mistake.  "The colors are on a spectrum; therefore red and blue are the same". 

The existence of an exactly fixed border isn't needed for there to be clear distinctions.  Is some non-D&D game with immense pedigree in the same category as a B/X mostly-clone from 2012?  Nope.  Can you find a bunch of intermediate games to confuse the issue?  Sure.  Does that matter?  Again, no.

This. Reminds me of the rejoinder I've heard against a similar argument in a different sphere. The only reason you can find fuzzy edge cases that challenge the line is because you know there is a line and where it is. if there was no line, there wouldn't be these edge cases to argue about in the first place.

Bingo.  As I posted above, no one here seems to have a problem differentiating between board games and TTRPGs, storygames and RPGs, wargames and RPGs, etc.  There are definitely some games that blur those lines.  But everyone still knows there's a line...

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 27, 2024, 10:43:21 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 26, 2024, 06:50:38 PMI'm not much into early D&D anymore, but I prefer the more narrow, useful version of OSR that assumes it is both old school in spirit and compatible mechanically with those games. Narrow definitions are useful to people inside and out.  When I describe my preferred game as old school in spirit but not compatible mechanically (i.e. not OSR but near it in spirit) then that says something fairly clear. 

What that statement would say to me is that you either chose to publish a book that won't call itself OSR and therefore likely sell less, or that you will call it OSR and therefore engage in what is essentially deceptive advertising.

The first one, except that I'm not even sure that I will publish at all.  (Make the game work the way I want locally first.  Then decide.)  I consciously set out to do something driven primarily by what I like, with any compatibility to old school D&D being an entirely secondary priority.  Calling it OSR would not only be deceptive advertising but a deeper deception in design.  It would be contrary to the whole purpose of the thing.

I hang around in threads like this, with strong interest, because "what I like" has a huge overlap in spirit with what OSR games do.  So naturally I have a vested interest in real OSR things being labeled as such, as well as equally clear call outs of games that are "third cousin, twice removed from OSR".  That's what I mean by clarity is also valuable to those who aren't after what an OSR game delivers. 

I knew that it meant that any game I made along those lines would sell less than an OSR game.  I'm not going to try to bastardize definitions to get around that after the fact.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 27, 2024, 04:13:47 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 27, 2024, 10:43:21 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 26, 2024, 06:50:38 PMI'm not much into early D&D anymore, but I prefer the more narrow, useful version of OSR that assumes it is both old school in spirit and compatible mechanically with those games. Narrow definitions are useful to people inside and out.  When I describe my preferred game as old school in spirit but not compatible mechanically (i.e. not OSR but near it in spirit) then that says something fairly clear. 

What that statement would say to me is that you either chose to publish a book that won't call itself OSR and therefore likely sell less, or that you will call it OSR and therefore engage in what is essentially deceptive advertising.

The first one, except that I'm not even sure that I will publish at all.  (Make the game work the way I want locally first.  Then decide.)  I consciously set out to do something driven primarily by what I like, with any compatibility to old school D&D being an entirely secondary priority.  Calling it OSR would not only be deceptive advertising but a deeper deception in design.  It would be contrary to the whole purpose of the thing.

I hang around in threads like this, with strong interest, because "what I like" has a huge overlap in spirit with what OSR games do.  So naturally I have a vested interest in real OSR things being labeled as such, as well as equally clear call outs of games that are "third cousin, twice removed from OSR".  That's what I mean by clarity is also valuable to those who aren't after what an OSR game delivers. 

I knew that it meant that any game I made along those lines would sell less than an OSR game.  I'm not going to try to bastardize definitions to get around that after the fact.

There's ALSO the fact that conflating the label (as TTRPG does) causes more bloat, making it harder to be discovered and might push away buyers since if you're looking for Old School Renaissance not just Old School or viceversa and you get lots of the stuff you're not searching for is tiresome.

The label/category should serve for the potential buyer to discriminate that which doesn't fall within it.

It's like if they placed OpenD6 in the same category as D&D, because they are both TTRPGs after all. "Are you saying that one isn't you bigot?".

Greetings!

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

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? :p

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? :p

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

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 05:05:39 PMWell, 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.

I actually agree with you on this position. OSR, originally, was NOT about "D&D-esque" RPGs, but instead old school inspired DIY gaming, which means I consider something like Cepheus Engine to be OSR by virtue of it emulating an old school game. HOWEVER, as a MARKETING TOOL, OSR has morphed into set of games with a narrow definition. At this point even stuff like C&C and Whitehack aren't OSR; I would also think White Box is right on the edge.

This is Pundit's forum, and he has books to sell, so the delineation is extremely important to him. For someone like me who prefers old school games, D&D or whatever else, I think this whole discussion is pretty stupid.

QuoteYou are doing a motte and bailey argument here. You're saying that because my games have a single-value Saving Throw roll (with individual bonuses to save vs types of challenges) instead of "Save vs paralysis/poison/wands/dragon breath/spells" that means its the same as someone making a dice pool game where the absolute core mechanics would work NOTHING like D&D does.
If instead of rolling D20s to hit, with modifiers from combat bonus and ability score modifiers you had a variable dice pool that counted successes, you would have to massively revise everything to make some TSR module (or LotFP, ACKS or whatever) fit. Whereas with just about anything from L&D or my other games you would just have to pick whether you wanted my version of the rule or the other version.
It's not in any way the same.

This was such a slap to the face I felt the need to mark and structure a proper argument now.



The accusations that I was using some sort of weak ass debate tactic is something I find jarring, I didn't realize the steaks were that high for this, and all the funnier because you invoke a false equivalence I'll address in a moment.


For one you were playing coy, saving throws are not the only difference your games have, and while most of them are at best nitpicks if that,  since difference is not a marked sin? as far as my understanding the of the OSR is (except maybe the BroSR) you forget to mention all the other subtle mechanics you've shifted from the baseline. the result in something that plays very differently than the typical OSR game such as the ones you dragged into this argument like LOFP and ACKS.

Examples include but are not limited to, 1, lack of gold based XP  incentive structures, 2, randomized level progression, 3. unified saving throws, 4 non-standard resource management, such as lack of spell slots or consideration for wealth.

These things combined add up to a play-style that is radically different and lacking resemblance with traditional OSR games, that's notable because YOUR ARGUMENT is that a d6-dice pool would play different or in your own hyperbolic words "Nothing like" an OSR game, well a typical Mytseria game looks nothing like a Lion & Dragon game even if fairly compatible, you simply are doing different things and are incentivised differently despite superficial stats and mechanics.


A false equivalence You presume I wouldn't note the difference between something being OSR compatible and of the OSR play-style, I never said a d6-dice pooled played like an OSR game in the traditional sense, I merely stated it could be compatible.

If a game is utterly capable of translating and has the same stats of Saving Throw, Hit dice,    six attributes ranging from 3-to-18, class niche protection, XP, and minimal procedures for dungeon and wilderness exploration, but it also jsut happens to use D6s for action resolution why is it suddenly not count or is discernibly different?

It's merely statistically different and your games already have enough invoked changes to qualify for that sin anyway, and besides all dice are just a d100s in disguise.


If I didn't know and respect your work enough I would have  attributed this argument to malice, considering it looks exactly like a real motte and bailey tactic, using mechanical compatibility as the cover while you retreat to limp "play style" argument.



I'd like to not invoke your pride but I must admit mine is a bit sting and I genuinely believe this line of argument was beneath you.

Quote from: Brad on May 27, 2024, 06:30:00 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 05:05:39 PMWell, 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.

I actually agree with you on this position. OSR, originally, was NOT about "D&D-esque" RPGs, but instead old school inspired DIY gaming, which means I consider something like Cepheus Engine to be OSR by virtue of it emulating an old school game. HOWEVER, as a MARKETING TOOL, OSR has morphed into set of games with a narrow definition. At this point even stuff like C&C and Whitehack aren't OSR; I would also think White Box is right on the edge.

This is Pundit's forum, and he has books to sell, so the delineation is extremely important to him. For someone like me who prefers old school games, D&D or whatever else, I think this whole discussion is pretty stupid.

You 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.

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 11:52:46 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 27, 2024, 10:59:08 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 01:01:00 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:49:22 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 25, 2024, 10:31:21 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 25, 2024, 09:59:54 AMI can't speak for the OP but I don't think point buy (or skills, or feats, or combat maneuvers) is in any way incompatible to the OSR.

When I say "compatibility with TSR" I do not mean theoretically, I'm actually running classic TSR modules and I don't want to do much conversion during the game. I also use old school monster manuals and encounter tables. This all despite of not running any TSR game (I use my own retroclone, Dark Fantasy Basic).

Of course, there are few "hard lines", since TSR contains many variations: roll high, roll low, 1d20, 2d6, 1d100, additional abilities (comeliness), race as class or separated, sci-fi aspects and entire games, NWP, WP, etc.

But the more conversion you need the farther you are.

Here is a curious example from Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/1d06tya/can_anyone_weigh_in_on_whether_our_game_is_osr_or/

Old school is comprised of more than just older TSR games. A tweaked clone of Traveler qualifies as old school IMHO.

Old School, definitely. OSR, no. OSR is based on D&D. As I pointed out, Traveller has its own third-party old-school movement these days, and that's great. But it is its own separate thing.

Why?

I know you feel obligated to repeat this often, but what benefit is there in isolating the OSR from any other game system that came out during that time? Why does it have to be D&D based only? is this some kind of One True Wayism for you? I ask, because this honestly looks like you are trying to protect some kind of marketing brand recognition you find in the acronym OSR.

In my video I already pointed out that for the OSR to mean anything actually concrete it has to be understood as a design school. That's what the OSR has really been at least since the release of LotFP (while before that it was just a reproduction of old editions and some new modules for those old editions). In order to be a design school, it has to have a framework, and that framework has to be the rules (any other framework, like genre or aesthetics would almost immediately be watered down into meaninglessness).
So you have say "the OSR is a box, within which you can be as creative as you like, but if you break outside the landmarks of that box, it is not OSR". That box is the D&D rules. You could have another box that is The Traveller Rules, or the Fantasy Trip rules, or T&T rules, or whatever. But you can't just say "that box is any old school game" or you do not in fact have a real framework.

It's like you're asking "why can't you say that impressionism is part of neo-classicism"? It's not a question of some kind of judgment, or claiming you can't appreciate both, it's just saying that the rules to create one are different from the rules to create the other. 

OK, so for a game to be OSR to you, it must be a slight variance of the D&D rules. Therefore d20 Traveller, a Traveller variant based upon slight modifications to D&D rules, is OSR. True or false?

Now, I'm bringing this up because one of the hallmarks of the OSR (at least in the beginning) was that the movement championed a DIY approach to gaming, a belief in rulings not rules, and player characters engaging with the setting instead of just pitting their numbers against the setting. None of which demands that the game be based on D&D.

Well, D20 Trav is based on 3.x, not old school D&D, so technically it would not be old school at all. And yet, on the other hand, it would still be MORE compatible with an OSR product than any other traveller game. You understand?

Quote from: Brad on May 27, 2024, 06:30:00 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 05:05:39 PMWell, 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.

I actually agree with you on this position. OSR, originally, was NOT about "D&D-esque" RPGs, but instead old school inspired DIY gaming, which means I consider something like Cepheus Engine to be OSR by virtue of it emulating an old school game. HOWEVER, as a MARKETING TOOL, OSR has morphed into set of games with a narrow definition. At this point even stuff like C&C and Whitehack aren't OSR; I would also think White Box is right on the edge.

This is Pundit's forum, and he has books to sell, so the delineation is extremely important to him. For someone like me who prefers old school games, D&D or whatever else, I think this whole discussion is pretty stupid.

Greetings!

Hey Brad! That is interesting. I didn't know. As I mentioned, everyone I have heard discuss the OSR--out in YouTube land--everyone talks about the OSR being based on D&D games. The only people I have heard claim something different is well, here, with Jeff and now you.

Note to JEFF! Well, then, I apologize, my friend. I am willing to take your word for it, and you, as well, Brad, that OSR early years embraced not only D&D based games, but evidently other games as well.

I hope that my initial post did not come across as angry or demeaning. I meant it to be hyperbolic, and chiding, really.

I am honest though. I don't know anyone--beyond you huys here--that ever talk about the OSR *not* being based primarily on D&D games.

As far as beyond the internet, well, you may consider this to be funny, or incredible, or both, maybe--but away from the internet, with most of my face-to-face friends, no one even knows what the term "OSR" really is, or even cares. They tend towards taking whatever philosophical gaming lore cues from me, as I interpret things. They are gamers, and love playing, but they are not typically up on all the gossip, news, and drama that goes on with the game online. *Laughing* For example, four of my players are girls, and they simply don't know and don't care about so much of this stuff, which when I do explain some things to them, they tend to see it all as being pretty trivial. However, even they know about the OGL debacle with WOTC, and they firmly believe that WOTC is an evil, greedy, and disgusting company. My own explanations more in-depth simply fortified their convictions. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Brad on May 27, 2024, 06:30:00 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 05:05:39 PMHOWEVER, as a MARKETING TOOL, OSR has morphed into set of games with a narrow definition. At this point even stuff like C&C and Whitehack aren't OSR; I would also think White Box is right on the edge.

Except that's a lie. What was happening in the original OSR (1st wave) movement was that they were very open about playing all kinds of old games, and making supplements for those games, and making clones of those games, but they consistently rejected any modifications that went too far from whatever their favorite one true ruleset was. The old OSR was vastly more restrictive. Innovation was treated with witch-trial like suspicion.

Today, there are literally thousands of OSR products, most of which are 2nd or 3rd wave, that is to say not directly based on ANY specific TSR era product. But all are based on the core of D&D design concepts.  [/quote]

Quote from: Socratic-DM on May 27, 2024, 08:05:44 PMThis was such a slap to the face I felt the need to mark and structure a proper argument now.



The accusations that I was using some sort of weak ass debate tactic is something I find jarring, I didn't realize the steaks were that high for this, and all the funnier because you invoke a false equivalence I'll address in a moment.


For one you were playing coy, saving throws are not the only difference your games have, and while most of them are at best nitpicks if that,  since difference is not a marked sin? as far as my understanding the of the OSR is (except maybe the BroSR) you forget to mention all the other subtle mechanics you've shifted from the baseline. the result in something that plays very differently than the typical OSR game such as the ones you dragged into this argument like LOFP and ACKS.

Examples include but are not limited to, 1, lack of gold based XP  incentive structures, 2, randomized level progression, 3. unified saving throws, 4 non-standard resource management, such as lack of spell slots or consideration for wealth.

NO, my products do not significantly vary from other OSR products. NO, it is not difficult to interact with other OSR products. Because it is an OSR game. I can take any real OSR book not written by me, and take monsters, spell effects, magic items, NPCs and use them almost entirely AS-IS. The only parts that require tweaking would be very slight, like figuring out a single save number, or what the monster's morale would be if the other book doesn't use morale, etc.

That's what good design does. If you understand what the real CORE of D&D, you can change everything else you want around that core, and the compatibility remains.

As to your claims as to differences, for example:
1. gold-based XP DOESN'T MATTER. If you move one of my classes into a campaign that wants to use xp-for-gold, you just use the XP tables of that other game, and its done. Likewise, if you want to do it the other way, changing OSE from xp-for-gold to the L&D XP system likewise takes an instant. That's because experience points (much less WHAT gives you experience points) is NOT a vital part of the D&D mechanics.
LEVELING is the vital part. As long as you have levels, how one levels up can vary.

2. Random Leveling: DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is leveling. There is already random leveling in old-school D&D, you get random spells, for example. What matters is that the designer of a game is sufficiently skilled (if not a full-on pipe-smoking genius) to be able to understand the right formula to maintain a similar balance. Also, please give an example of how you think L&D's random leveling would create a COMPATIBILITY problem with another game? Like, are you trying to run Sword & Caravan with OSE? Are you worried about running Barrowmaze with L&D? Or are you wanting to let players decide any class they want to be from either L&D or Labyrinth Lord? In none of those three scenarios (though the last one is pretty weird) is there any real compatibility problem.

3. Swords & Wizardry has unified Saving throws, cunt. Next?

4. "non standard resource management"? "Such as spell slots or consideration of wealth"? WTF IS THIS EVEN SUPPOSED TO MEAN?! How is there not resource management in L&D? Not that there inherently needs to be, because again this is not part of the core of the D&D system; like if you didn't track encumbrance and just played it by ear that would not ruin anything of the game (except if you really enjoy encumbrance tracking itself). Spell slots are not an essential mechanic of the D&D game. You can make magic work in any number of other ways; DCC already proved that before L&D ever did.
And "lack of consideration of wealth"? WTF are you talking about? If anything, EVERY OTHER D&D game has a total lack of consideration for real social status, which is something that matters far more in real medieval cultures.
But L&D has wealth. You have starting equipment and some social classes have starting money. You have expenses and they're tracked, Penny Shilling and Pound (or Fal and Dirham, or Denarii and Grzywna). Things still have value and must be traded for. There's also no "local magic shop". Wealthy people have privileges the poor do not, though wealth is not nearly as important as class (the richest merchant is still just another fucking peasant compared to the poorest noble, though he could probably pay to have that noble killed).

So where the flying FUCK do you get this nonsense?

QuoteThese things combined add up to a play-style that is radically different and lacking resemblance with traditional OSR games, that's notable because YOUR ARGUMENT is that a d6-dice pool would play different or in your own hyperbolic words "Nothing like" an OSR game, well a typical Mytseria game looks nothing like a Lion & Dragon game even if fairly compatible, you simply are doing different things and are incentivised differently despite superficial stats and mechanics.

Playstyle in terms of style of play? In terms of what happens in a game? Yes. My games are not like greyhawk or the forgotten realms or mystara or dragonlance or eberron, all of which are PRACTICALLY THE FUCKING SAME because TSR (and WotC) have zero ideas about the creative boundaries to which D&D can reach.
But no one said that the point is to have the same fucking boring style of play in the same fucking boring worlds forever. Though I'm guessing that's what pisses you off?
The point is that they have the same MECHANICAL FOUNDATION, and are thus compatible. You can take stuff from my book, and put it into someone else's book, and you don't have to figure out how to change the underlying system to make it fit (or at most the change as such is just simple omission or addition).

QuoteA false equivalence You presume I wouldn't note the difference between something being OSR compatible and of the OSR play-style, I never said a d6-dice pooled played like an OSR game in the traditional sense, I merely stated it could be compatible.

Explain how to do an attack roll with a dice-pool system that would work EXACTLY like an attack in D&D, where you would not have to make any conversion calculations, and where the odds would remain in the same broad range.

QuoteIf a game is utterly capable of translating and has the same stats of Saving Throw, Hit dice,    six attributes ranging from 3-to-18, class niche protection, XP, and minimal procedures for dungeon and wilderness exploration, but it also jsut happens to use D6s for action resolution why is it suddenly not count or is discernibly different?

Look at one of my games. Let's say I have an L&D monster. Let's call him "Socrates the enormous time-wasting cunt". In my stats, they would say:
Init:+0 AC:11 MV:30' HD:1d6 Save:16 AL:N Morale:7
Attack: +0 weak argument (1d3)

Someone could INSTANTLY generate that monster in a S&W or OSE game and would have all the data they need without having to convert something or do anything.

Now let's look at the same character in your imaginary dice pool game; in that at the very least the method you roll is different, right? So that means that the method of how you devise what to roll is different. So there must be a stat that guides how many dice you roll; or multiple stats that do the same. Your statblock would look NOTHING like a standard D&D statblock. Maybe you'd still have something like "armor class" (though more likely it would be some kind of defensive dice pool, right?) or hit points (though in dice pool games you typically want to have levels of injury instead of HP), but when I say:
Socrates the cunt (+0 to hit, 1d3 damage)
no translation whatsoever is needed. If you have:
Socrates the cunt (attack pool:8 defense pool:4 Damage rating:E) that is essentially zero compatibility right?

In my system, someone could buy any of my adventures, never own my main book, and still be able to relatively easily run that adventure with whatever version of D&D they like. That's compatibility.
A dice pool attack mechanic, to be compatible, would need to do EXACTLY the same as a D20 attack roll does; and if that was the case, why the fuck would you even bother to come up with it just to do the exact same thing everyone else already knows how to do with a D20?!

It is ridiculous that you want to claim simultaneously that my games are not OSR, while wanting to make the argument that somehow a dice-pool system could be OSR.

The lengths you are going to just to try to stop the OSR from being seen as a Design School is really impressive. I wish people like you would just come out and say what their REAL motive is, instead of hiding behind these moronic types of arguments.

Quote3. Swords & Wizardry has unified Saving throws, cunt. Next?

Jesus, did someone piss in your coffee this morning or something? I disagreed with and suggested you were wrong, what's with the crass name calling?

QuoteLook at one of my games. Let's say I have an L&D monster. Let's call him "Socrates the enormous time-wasting cunt". In my stats,

Did someone back over your cat with a truck or something? Christ sorry man but you don't have to be utterly rude.

I'm not even going to read the rest at this dribble shit, cause you utterly missed the point by nitpicking the points of difference, they represent a sum total in which your games style differs, I never suggested they weren't compatible, nor was that ever my point.

I'm not, nor I suspect many people on this forum  the types of people you dealt from the Forge or Twitter, have a shred of dignity or respect at the least. sorry that the suggestion of a dice pool resolution mechanic for an OSR game was some sort of personal attack on your character or something?


ALSO I never said your games were not OSR?  if it came off that way it was me pointing out a perceived double standard, not my actual opinion on your games...

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 27, 2024, 08:22:50 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 11:52:46 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 27, 2024, 10:59:08 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on May 27, 2024, 01:01:00 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 26, 2024, 03:49:22 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 25, 2024, 10:31:21 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 25, 2024, 09:59:54 AMI can't speak for the OP but I don't think point buy (or skills, or feats, or combat maneuvers) is in any way incompatible to the OSR.

When I say "compatibility with TSR" I do not mean theoretically, I'm actually running classic TSR modules and I don't want to do much conversion during the game. I also use old school monster manuals and encounter tables. This all despite of not running any TSR game (I use my own retroclone, Dark Fantasy Basic).

Of course, there are few "hard lines", since TSR contains many variations: roll high, roll low, 1d20, 2d6, 1d100, additional abilities (comeliness), race as class or separated, sci-fi aspects and entire games, NWP, WP, etc.

But the more conversion you need the farther you are.

Here is a curious example from Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/1d06tya/can_anyone_weigh_in_on_whether_our_game_is_osr_or/

Old school is comprised of more than just older TSR games. A tweaked clone of Traveler qualifies as old school IMHO.

Old School, definitely. OSR, no. OSR is based on D&D. As I pointed out, Traveller has its own third-party old-school movement these days, and that's great. But it is its own separate thing.

Why?

I know you feel obligated to repeat this often, but what benefit is there in isolating the OSR from any other game system that came out during that time? Why does it have to be D&D based only? is this some kind of One True Wayism for you? I ask, because this honestly looks like you are trying to protect some kind of marketing brand recognition you find in the acronym OSR.

In my video I already pointed out that for the OSR to mean anything actually concrete it has to be understood as a design school. That's what the OSR has really been at least since the release of LotFP (while before that it was just a reproduction of old editions and some new modules for those old editions). In order to be a design school, it has to have a framework, and that framework has to be the rules (any other framework, like genre or aesthetics would almost immediately be watered down into meaninglessness).
So you have say "the OSR is a box, within which you can be as creative as you like, but if you break outside the landmarks of that box, it is not OSR". That box is the D&D rules. You could have another box that is The Traveller Rules, or the Fantasy Trip rules, or T&T rules, or whatever. But you can't just say "that box is any old school game" or you do not in fact have a real framework.

It's like you're asking "why can't you say that impressionism is part of neo-classicism"? It's not a question of some kind of judgment, or claiming you can't appreciate both, it's just saying that the rules to create one are different from the rules to create the other. 

OK, so for a game to be OSR to you, it must be a slight variance of the D&D rules. Therefore d20 Traveller, a Traveller variant based upon slight modifications to D&D rules, is OSR. True or false?

Now, I'm bringing this up because one of the hallmarks of the OSR (at least in the beginning) was that the movement championed a DIY approach to gaming, a belief in rulings not rules, and player characters engaging with the setting instead of just pitting their numbers against the setting. None of which demands that the game be based on D&D.

Well, D20 Trav is based on 3.x, not old school D&D, so technically it would not be old school at all. And yet, on the other hand, it would still be MORE compatible with an OSR product than any other traveller game. You understand?

Unfortunately, yes.

I concede the point.

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? :p

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

Well, 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.

And good rememberances from this Squid to a Jarhead today.

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 27, 2024, 11:01:28 AMThere's a huge difference between an author who wants to make sure that his game is considered within a category and therefore makes a game that actually fits in the standards of that category, and an author who wants his game to make more money and therefore falsely claims that his product is in a popular category that would sell better.

Absolutely, and if I'm looking for neither of those two things then the banner is enough to know I can move on to another product, regardless of which one the author intended.

So, this hypothetical dice pool system that could be used with products written for D&D derived OSR games without any need for conversion.  I am wondering what this system would look like and how it would work.  How, exactly, would such a system work.

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.

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 27, 2024, 08:34:02 PMExcept that's a lie. What was happening in the original OSR (1st wave) movement was that they were very open about playing all kinds of old games, and making supplements for those games, and making clones of those games, but they consistently rejected any modifications that went too far from whatever their favorite one true ruleset was. The old OSR was vastly more restrictive. Innovation was treated with witch-trial like suspicion.

Today, there are literally thousands of OSR products, most of which are 2nd or 3rd wave, that is to say not directly based on ANY specific TSR era product. But all are based on the core of D&D design concepts.

Is it, though? I don't think there was any conscious effort to stick to the text strictly beyond, "We want to play old school D&D but can't find copies of the books so let's just duplicate them." That's a lot different than some draconian edict that abhorred differences. You are right that people complained about differences that were seemingly irrelevant (LL and 1st level cleric spells were a big one), but again, was this conscious or just a product of not really innovating? I don't believe people didn't want to innovate, there just wasn't any reason to at all.

I think we're talking past each other here...

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2024, 08:33:05 PMHey Brad! That is interesting. I didn't know. As I mentioned, everyone I have heard discuss the OSR--out in YouTube land--everyone talks about the OSR being based on D&D games. The only people I have heard claim something different is well, here, with Jeff and now you.

I am sure that's all you've ever thought it has been; no one who embraced the OSR DIY mindset who was cloning Traveller ever branded it as OSR, from my recollection. It was lumped into the entire "movement," but fairly early on OSR started to become a buzzword that no one could agree one until a group of individuals started to put logos on OSRIC modules and that was it. If it wasn't compatible with TSR-era D&D, it wasn't OSR.

I have no idea why Pundit is arguing this point, honestly. He should know better than anyone that the OSR brand has little to do with the original OSR.

Quote from: Brad on May 28, 2024, 09:21:24 AM

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2024, 08:33:05 PMHey Brad! That is interesting. I didn't know. As I mentioned, everyone I have heard discuss the OSR--out in YouTube land--everyone talks about the OSR being based on D&D games. The only people I have heard claim something different is well, here, with Jeff and now you.

I am sure that's all you've ever thought it has been; no one who embraced the OSR DIY mindset who was cloning Traveller ever branded it as OSR, from my recollection. It was lumped into the entire "movement," but fairly early on OSR started to become a buzzword that no one could agree one until a group of individuals started to put logos on OSRIC modules and that was it. If it wasn't compatible with TSR-era D&D, it wasn't OSR.

I have no idea why Pundit is arguing this point, honestly. He should know better than anyone that the OSR brand has little to do with the original OSR.

It's his forum, history be damned.

Quote from: Brad on May 28, 2024, 09:12:59 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 27, 2024, 08:34:02 PMExcept that's a lie. What was happening in the original OSR (1st wave) movement was that they were very open about playing all kinds of old games, and making supplements for those games, and making clones of those games, but they consistently rejected any modifications that went too far from whatever their favorite one true ruleset was. The old OSR was vastly more restrictive. Innovation was treated with witch-trial like suspicion.

Today, there are literally thousands of OSR products, most of which are 2nd or 3rd wave, that is to say not directly based on ANY specific TSR era product. But all are based on the core of D&D design concepts.

Is it, though? I don't think there was any conscious effort to stick to the text strictly beyond, "We want to play old school D&D but can't find copies of the books so let's just duplicate them." That's a lot different than some draconian edict that abhorred differences. You are right that people complained about differences that were seemingly irrelevant (LL and 1st level cleric spells were a big one), but again, was this conscious or just a product of not really innovating? I don't believe people didn't want to innovate, there just wasn't any reason to at all.

I think we're talking past each other here...

It'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.

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.

I don't remember who said "classification is not right or wrong, but useful or useless".

Of course you can call anything you like "OSR", but the OSR label is a thing that exists, mostly on DTRPG.

95% 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 used it today, I just saw this product on sale that looks interesting:

https://legacy.drivethrurpg.com/product/349306/The-City-of-the-Red-Pox

No OSR label, probably not compatible - it is for Troika, mentioned above.

I gave other clear example enough: somente used the OSR label and got immediately corrected on DTRPG.

Yes, there are many incorrect uses, but most of the time the term has a meaning, and it means at least vaguely compatible with TSR D&D.

It is okay to argue about history/etymology, but that is how the term is currently used.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on May 24, 2024, 07:55:14 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 24, 2024, 02:38:41 AMCount down to the usual suspects intent on diluting the term until it means nothing.

Well thats what they do. The OSR has produced so many cool products that have not been tainted by woke bullshit and the woke asshats cannot stand that. They must infect every aspect of culture, and there can be no bastions of sanity left to compare to their mindless drivel.

Getting 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

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? :p

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? :p

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:

I'm perfectly fine with "OSR" meaning compatible with classic (pre-1e) D&D and retroclones derived as such for compatibility.

I'm FAR more interested in a brand for the school of thought and design around Old School aesthetics. Not particularly interested in retrocloning for specific systems per se. But rather something that adheres to design conceits that do the following:

1) pull DNA from OSR design aesthetics (systems must have stats, genre service where necessary, must not be narrative driven by design, etc.)
2) sandbox design of both adventure and settings
3) GM advocacy for teaching GM's how to run sandbox-style from small scale to large scale.

Obviously there are a lot of caveats to these, but the goal is to ignite the remnants and fallout from the inevitable 6e gates slamming shut in their virtual walled garden, to create that fertile environment that existed in the early 80's where anything was possible. I completely agree with Pundit - these things can coexist with the OSR, and *should*.

They are not competitors in the sense of marketing, as our individual collections of RPG's can attest. Rather they're partners of a specific design school of thought with different expressions of mechanics towards the same end. I know there is a synthesis of these ideas, because we did it back in the day. Hell, half of our house rules for D&D came from other game-systems, but we played D&D which everyone here would recognize. And that's why the OSR is important to me, I *recognize* the DNA of what we claim we want to do, even outside of the D&D paradigm.

Perhaps "OSG" should be a topic for another thread. Let me think on this a bit.

Quote from: Brad on May 29, 2024, 09:14:08 AMIt'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.

From the outside, yeah it feels stupid. From the inside (i.e. people that want to publish or create content etc) I totally get why the tribalism is real. My goal, and I believe the spirit of the OSR (in whatever form) is to capture the "essence" of what made gaming great in the first place.

I'm not putting my flag down on the system as the sole anchor-point, saying that as someone that lived and played through that era. It was my introduction to the hobby circa 1978. For me, it's a bit early. It's not to say that the DNA for the (over)complexity of what would come later wasn't there - it simply wasn't developed.

One argument from the OSR is that the complexity *should never* have been introduced in the first place. I can see that perspective, but I chalk it up to the learning process, and I also believe it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There were *insanely* good systems that fall directly into OSR design aesthetic that co-existed with early D&D. First and foremost is Talislanta. Fantastically good and simple system that has barely changed AND has higher scalability, as easy to learn, and is more modular than even BX.

But of course there are dozens of games that overdid it from that era. The goal I'm talking about is threading that needle.

Case in point - even the new Talislanta 6e game has gone back to its 2e roots. But it's still 99% compatible with its other editions. This is exactly why I get Pundit's strident view of what he wants the OSR to be.

I'm looking to extract those principles outside of just the ruleset into a larger design philosophy for new and veteran GM's to design for - for both personal and published material.

I own very few games that describe themselves as OSR. I enjoyed early D&D when I played it decades ago, but that wasn't because I enjoyed those rules. For the most part, when I pick up a D&D-based OSR product, it's to mine for ideas I can put into a system I prefer. The only OSR game that I recall playing using it's own rule system has been Against the Darkmaster (DTRPG calls it "d100 / d100 Lite, Old-School Revival (OSR)"), which Pundit will say shouldn't be considered OSR as it's based on MERP.

I always considered anything OSR is using a ruleset and game mechanics that is pre-3e D&D.

But that's just me.

Quote from: HappyDaze on May 29, 2024, 10:53:13 AMI own very few games that describe themselves as OSR. I enjoyed early D&D when I played it decades ago, but that wasn't because I enjoyed those rules. For the most part, when I pick up a D&D-based OSR product, it's to mine for ideas I can put into a system I prefer. The only OSR game that I recall playing using it's own rule system has been Against the Darkmaster (DTRPG calls it "d100 / d100 Lite, Old-School Revival (OSR)"), which Pundit will say shouldn't be considered OSR as it's based on MERP.

So, here we can see the problem: DTRPG has several Rolemaster books.

They are listed under "HARP/Rolemaster", not "d100 / d100 Lite, Old-School Revival (OSR)".

But they are probably compatible - maybe I could use "Arms Law" of a Rolemaster adventure with Darkmaster.

What does the OSR label says about "Against the Darkmaster"? Next to nothing, IMO.

EDIT: one thing to add is that D&D changed more than some other systems. We don't need a Runequest "clone" or "Renaissance" because current Runequest is roughly compatible with the original in a way 5e is not compatible with AD&D.

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? :p

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.

Greetings!

Hey there, Blackstone! Oh yeah! HACKMASTER is indeed an ancestor for the OSR. Hackmaster was doing OLD SCHOOL when everyone else was focused on other things, for sure!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on May 29, 2024, 02:53:49 PM

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? :p

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.

Greetings!

Hey there, Blackstone! Oh yeah! HACKMASTER is indeed an ancestor for the OSR. Hackmaster was doing OLD SCHOOL when everyone else was focused on other things, for sure!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Still playing HM 4e today. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 29, 2024, 11:51:16 AMEDIT: one thing to add is that D&D changed more than some other systems. We don't need a Runequest "clone" or "Renaissance" because current Runequest is roughly compatible with the original in a way 5e is not compatible with AD&D.

That's right! But this is why I think the OSR is MORE important as a marketing tool. For it to mean something, it has to stand with specificity for something or it means nothing. That's why I *want* the OSR people hashing this out. Because I'm looking at the bigger picture and I want GOOD GAMING. Even though I don't run OSR games, I own all the original source material and a lot of the modern material. I'm particularly fond of ACKS and a couple of Pundits things, not because I plan on using them as intended, but because they're superb inspirations for other things I want to create outside of B/X style gaming. This is the greater Renaissance idea.

Palladium Fantasy exists, Talislanta exists, Rolemaster exists *because* of D&D - and the entire pantheon of classic games we all know likewise spawned from this cell. The primary difference here is WE are the inheritors of this greatness. WE know they do not go away, your example is proof of that. Runequest still exists, and it is perfectly playable as it is. Same with whatever edition of D&D you like to roll with.

What I'm extracting here from the OSR is the *need* to recapitulate what came after into the now. As a consumer it only requires you dive in and play whatever floats your boat. As a creator - well it means we need to show that we actually learned some lessons, and have synthesized something worthy of our forebears that you as a consumer will chomp at the bit to purchase. Because we're coming from a design philosophy that cleaves directly from the spirit, if not the system of B/X which birthed it all. And that has to be done with great intent. We're not trashing what came before, we're distilling it with the full understanding that it's not only B/X we're pulling from, but everything else that sprang from B/X forward until the mindrot set in. We should, ideally know now what not to do, and we'll know, because if you don't buy it, you'll be telling us.

I am in agreement with Pundit - there is nothing wrong with these ideas being of the same root, different, but parallel in spirit. His definition of the OSR is clear to me. Allow me to use the metaphor - it sits solidly at the root. But I think the greatest era of the gaming is slightly later, I say that's the flower. But it's the same plant.

With WotC walling itself off. This is our time.

Quote from: tenbones on May 29, 2024, 03:09:21 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 29, 2024, 11:51:16 AMEDIT: one thing to add is that D&D changed more than some other systems. We don't need a Runequest "clone" or "Renaissance" because current Runequest is roughly compatible with the original in a way 5e is not compatible with AD&D.

That's right! But this is why I think the OSR is MORE important as a marketing tool. For it to mean something, it has to stand with specificity for something or it means nothing. That's why I *want* the OSR people hashing this out. Because I'm looking at the bigger picture and I want GOOD GAMING. Even though I don't run OSR games, I own all the original source material and a lot of the modern material. I'm particularly fond of ACKS and a couple of Pundits things, not because I plan on using them as intended, but because they're superb inspirations for other things I want to create outside of B/X style gaming. This is the greater Renaissance idea.

Palladium Fantasy exists, Talislanta exists, Rolemaster exists *because* of D&D - and the entire pantheon of classic games we all know likewise spawned from this cell. The primary difference here is WE are the inheritors of this greatness. WE know they do not go away, your example is proof of that. Runequest still exists, and it is perfectly playable as it is. Same with whatever edition of D&D you like to roll with.

What I'm extracting here from the OSR is the *need* to recapitulate what came after into the now. As a consumer it only requires you dive in and play whatever floats your boat. As a creator - well it means we need to show that we actually learned some lessons, and have synthesized something worthy of our forebears that you as a consumer will chomp at the bit to purchase. Because we're coming from a design philosophy that cleaves directly from the spirit, if not the system of B/X which birthed it all. And that has to be done with great intent. We're not trashing what came before, we're distilling it with the full understanding that it's not only B/X we're pulling from, but everything else that sprang from B/X forward until the mindrot set in. We should, ideally know now what not to do, and we'll know, because if you don't buy it, you'll be telling us.

I am in agreement with Pundit - there is nothing wrong with these ideas being of the same root, different, but parallel in spirit. His definition of the OSR is clear to me. Allow me to use the metaphor - it sits solidly at the root. But I think the greatest era of the gaming is slightly later, I say that's the flower. But it's the same plant.

With WotC walling itself off. This is our time.

Hear, hear!  The bigger that WotC's D&D gets, the blander it must get to appeal to "everyone."  As D&D becomes the tasteless gruel of roleplaying games, the spirit of the past combined with the creativity of the present will lead to the great RPGs of the future.  I truly believe that D&D's rise has also given a huge opportunity for the OSR, because the spirit of the OSR is just better...

Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 29, 2024, 11:51:16 AMWhat does the OSR label says about "Against the Darkmaster"? Next to nothing, IMO.

I didn't buy it because it is listed as OSR. That never even factored into it for me. My friend that was running the game also didn't buy it because it was listed as OSR. He bought it hoping it would get me and a few others to try an all-in-one-book Rolemaster-ish ruleset. It did. I liked it well enough, better than most of the heavier Rolemaster games I've walked away from (but I do have a fondness for HARP).

I notice many posters have a "pure" concept of rule sets. This is not my remembrance of the the time period, rules used, and campaigns we played. Our games were mish mashes of rules from AD&D (we also raided earlier editions for rules that we liked), Arduin, C&S, any interesting articles from several different gaming magazines, ICE with Arms Law/Spell Law/Claw Law, and various gaming supplements that my Alzheimerish mind fails to recollect at the moment.

I like renaissance because I like the creativity in the movement. I really like BX and derivative rule sets, but I'm not comfortable limiting my old school self to that narrow confinement.

I would encourage author's of rule sets to be more forth coming of design influences, compatibility, and divergences in their advertisements, blogs, and introductions. As an example, Rob Conley does an excellent job making sure you know on all of his material that they are designed from S&W.

Last thought, just do it. Make what you like and want. It won't get done if sit on your ass.

Quote from: swzl on May 30, 2024, 07:31:35 AMI notice many posters have a "pure" concept of rule sets. This is not my remembrance of the the time period, rules used, and campaigns we played. Our games were mish mashes of rules from AD&D (we also raided earlier editions for rules that we liked), Arduin, C&S, any interesting articles from several different gaming magazines, ICE with Arms Law/Spell Law/Claw Law, and various gaming supplements that my Alzheimerish mind fails to recollect at the moment.

You should read my actual post. I literally said exactly this. But the difference we're proposing now is synthesizing the design school that emerged from that era so we can re-examine and have a new era that leverages those systems into new things. OSR is doing just that with B/X. The Renaissance is when we get off our collective asses and do it with other systems.

As an aside - I'm consulting on the Heroic RPG which is a continuation of the MSH game. And it has the "blessing" of Jeff Grubb and Steve Winter, which is a proto-example of this. It's in the vein of the OSR, but not OSR. I think we can push this further.

Quote from: swzl on May 30, 2024, 07:31:35 AMI like renaissance because I like the creativity in the movement. I really like BX and derivative rule sets, but I'm not comfortable limiting my old school self to that narrow confinement.

I would encourage author's of rule sets to be more forth coming of design influences, compatibility, and divergences in their advertisements, blogs, and introductions. As an example, Rob Conley does an excellent job making sure you know on all of his material that they are designed from S&W.

Last thought, just do it. Make what you like and want. It won't get done if sit on your ass.

Yes.

Quote from: swzl on May 30, 2024, 07:31:35 AMI would encourage author's of rule sets to be more forth coming of design influences, compatibility, and divergences in their advertisements, blogs, and introductions. As an example, Rob Conley does an excellent job making sure you know on all of his material that they are designed from S&W.

Appreciate the compliment.

Aside from giving proper credit when due, I think it helps to be explicit about one's creative choices. It been my observation that most kitbash the rules they use for their campaign. Sure they start with a single system but afterwards add in whatever they think is cool and/or fun to have in the campaign.

So as an author why not make it easy to kitbash? My Majestic Fantasy Rules work as is but I know portions can work with other ruleset based on the classic editions. Largely because much of my stuff is an adaptation of Finch's Swords & Wizardry.

Quote from: tenbones on May 29, 2024, 03:09:21 PMBecause we're coming from a design philosophy that cleaves directly from the spirit, if not the system of B/X which birthed it all. And that has to be done with great intent.

What does it mean, in concrete terms, when you say that a system cleaves to the spirit of B/X or that it has old-school DNA?  You do some criteria but they are extremely broad.  Almost anything that is not explicitly a story game could fall under that category.  Vampire:the Masquerade and Requiem could arguably fall under that category.  It has stats.  There are no explicit narrative mechanics despite pretensions to being a storygame.  The default campaign style is a city sized sandbox.  Is such a broad category meaningful or useful?     

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 30, 2024, 06:15:03 PMWhat does it mean, in concrete terms, when you say that a system cleaves to the spirit of B/X or that it has old-school DNA?  You do some criteria but they are extremely broad.  Almost anything that is not explicitly a story game could fall under that category.  Vampire:the Masquerade and Requiem could arguably fall under that category.  It has stats.  There are no explicit narrative mechanics despite pretensions to being a storygame.  The default campaign style is a city sized sandbox.  Is such a broad category meaningful or useful?     

When did anything creative ever work by checking off a list of bullet points?

Why two editions of Vampire wouldn't be considered OSR?

• They both use systems that are very different from D&D. They are different in terms of the design of the system and the level and type of detail the system goes into.
• Because they both focus on depicting vampires in modern times, mostly in a modern urban environment.
• And while Vampire is noted for their sandbox environments, they put the bulk of their focus on the dynamics of conflicts between factions and the interpersonal relationships of PCs and NPCs.

Even if we are talking about Vampire the Dark Ages and Constantinople by Night, many thematic and mechanical differences make the result very different from D&D. Moreso, even when they are similar, there are major differences in emphasis.

If you want this reduced to a bullet list, it will not work. What is classic D&Dish is a judgment call. Some would say what I did for Blackmarsh and the Majestic Fantasy RPG is not very classic D&Dish, while most seem to feel that my efforts are squarely in the category of classic D&Dish.

I emphasize conflicts between factions and the interpersonal relationships between PCs and NPCs. They are set in the context of a world of D&D-style dungeons and adventures. In short, these elements are "in addition to" not "in lieu of". The same applies to the mechanics I added to my Majestic Fantasy RPG.

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 30, 2024, 06:15:03 PM

Quote from: tenbones on May 29, 2024, 03:09:21 PMBecause we're coming from a design philosophy that cleaves directly from the spirit, if not the system of B/X which birthed it all. And that has to be done with great intent.

What does it mean, in concrete terms, when you say that a system cleaves to the spirit of B/X or that it has old-school DNA?  You do some criteria but they are extremely broad.  Almost anything that is not explicitly a story game could fall under that category.  Vampire:the Masquerade and Requiem could arguably fall under that category.  It has stats.  There are no explicit narrative mechanics despite pretensions to being a storygame.  The default campaign style is a city sized sandbox.  Is such a broad category meaningful or useful?     

That you take the system (originally the whole game) and build upon it. Is the game you mention in any way shape or form based on the same system?

For starters it's more a LARPing game than an RPG, then it doesn't use the same underlaying game engine. If you can find a way to:

Avoid any lawsuit from the owners of VtM
Make it work with an engine that's "Classic D&Dish"
Make it so it plays close to "Classic D&Dish"

Then it would be OSR, if not then it's not.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMThat you take the system (originally the whole game) and build upon it. Is the game you mention in any way shape or form based on the same system?

In any way, shape or form?  That's broad enough that it could mean just about anything.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMFor starters it's more a LARPing game than an RPG, then it doesn't use the same underlaying game engine. If you can find a way to:

I don't know where you got LARP from.  Both of the games I listed are pen and paper games.  By the vague criteria listed earlier (has stats, not a storygame, sandbox play) they could both be classified as OSR games.  Most games published games ever published could be classified as OSR games using such vague criteria.   

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMMake it work with an engine that's "Classic D&Dish"
Make it so it plays close to "Classic D&Dish"

In concrete terms.  What does that mean in concrete terms?  What does it mean for something to play close to Classic D&Dish?  Is Dungeon World an OSR game based on this?  If not, why not?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMThen it would be OSR, if not then it's not.

That doesn't actually tell me much of anything/

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 31, 2024, 02:54:42 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMThat you take the system (originally the whole game) and build upon it. Is the game you mention in any way shape or form based on the same system?

In any way, shape or form?  That's broad enough that it could mean just about anything.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMFor starters it's more a LARPing game than an RPG, then it doesn't use the same underlaying game engine. If you can find a way to:

I don't know where you got LARP from.  Both of the games I listed are pen and paper games.  By the vague criteria listed earlier (has stats, not a storygame, sandbox play) they could both be classified as OSR games.  Most games published games ever published could be classified as OSR games using such vague criteria.   

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMMake it work with an engine that's "Classic D&Dish"
Make it so it plays close to "Classic D&Dish"

In concrete terms.  What does that mean in concrete terms?  What does it mean for something to play close to Classic D&Dish?  Is Dungeon World an OSR game based on this?  If not, why not?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMThen it would be OSR, if not then it's not.

That doesn't actually tell me much of anything/

The engine, is the underlaying engine the same?

No, none of the games you mention are OSR because they don't use the same engine.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 31, 2024, 03:05:58 AMThe engine, is the underlaying engine the same?

No, none of the games you mention are OSR because they don't use the same engine.

What engine, exactly?

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 31, 2024, 02:54:42 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 30, 2024, 09:32:26 PMMake it work with an engine that's "Classic D&Dish"
Make it so it plays close to "Classic D&Dish"

In concrete terms.  What does that mean in concrete terms?  What does it mean for something to play close to Classic D&Dish?

It is not complicated. We have a bunch of out-of-print classic D&D modules that represent the expectation of how classic D&D plays.

If you need a refresher as to what that list is.
https://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modcode.html

We have a bunch of out of print editions that represent the expectation of classic D&D mechanics.
https://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/rulebooks.html

We have two "hacks" that illustrate how one can take the d20 SRD or the 5e SRD and strip out the newer mechanics, leaving a set of rules that is a hop and a skip from a particular classic edition.

https://www.knights-n-knaves.com/
https://www.basicfantasy.org/

Both hacks relied on open content under open licenses, meaning that anybody with an idea has the same access to the IP as anybody already publishing or sharing material based on this body of work.

Moreso, thanks to publishers like the one below, people have good examples of how to play with the themes of the above body of work using different mechanics. Or use the mechanics of the above body of work to handle different themes.

https://sine-nomine-publishing.myshopify.com/
https://goodman-games.com/dungeon-crawl-classics-rpg/
https://freeleaguepublishing.com/shop/mork-borg/
https://dungeon-world.com/

Now is any of this unclear? Too complicated to understand? Hard to follow?

What this does mean that it is work. You will have to do some reading on various items from the above body of works to understand what classic D&Dish means. Understand a bit of how it was developed to see where various authors are coming from, particularly folks like Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax. It is not hard, but it is work, not something that boils down to a snappy quip, a catchy marketing blurb or even a bullet list.

𝐼𝒻 𝐼 𝓊𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝒹𝟣𝟢𝟢 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝑒𝒶𝒹 𝑜𝒻 𝒹𝟤𝟢 𝒾𝓃 𝒶 𝐵𝒳 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃, 𝒾𝓉 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝒷𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝒾𝓉𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝒶𝓃𝓎 𝑒𝓍𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒟&𝒟 𝓂𝑜𝒹𝓊𝓁𝑒.  𝒴𝑜𝓊 𝓈𝓊𝒸𝒽 𝓂𝓊𝓁𝓉𝒾𝓅𝓁𝓎 𝓂𝑜𝓈𝓉 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓎𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒷𝓎 𝟧.  𝒜𝓃𝓎 𝓌𝒶𝓇𝑔𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝑔𝓇𝑜𝑔𝓃𝒶𝓇𝒹 𝒸𝒶𝓃 𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝒽𝑒𝒶𝒹.  𝑅𝑒𝓁𝑒𝒶𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑅𝒫𝒢 𝒾𝓃 𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝑒𝓃𝓈𝓊𝓇𝑒 𝓃𝑜 𝓏𝑜𝑜𝓂𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓅𝓁𝒶𝓎 𝒾𝓉.

Quote from: estar on May 31, 2024, 09:12:08 AMNow is any of this unclear? Too complicated to understand? Hard to follow?

I didn't say anything about it being too complicated but nice attempt to dismiss what I am saying by insinuating that I just too dumb to get it. 

I said that it's too vague and ill-defined to have any value as a category of product. 

Quote from: DocJones on May 31, 2024, 06:50:22 PM𝐼𝒻 𝐼 𝓊𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝒹𝟣𝟢𝟢 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝑒𝒶𝒹 𝑜𝒻 𝒹𝟤𝟢 𝒾𝓃 𝒶 𝐵𝒳 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃, 𝒾𝓉 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝒷𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝒾𝓉𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝒶𝓃𝓎 𝑒𝓍𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒟&𝒟 𝓂𝑜𝒹𝓊𝓁𝑒.  𝒴𝑜𝓊 𝓈𝓊𝒸𝒽 𝓂𝓊𝓁𝓉𝒾𝓅𝓁𝓎 𝓂𝑜𝓈𝓉 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓎𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒷𝓎 𝟧.  𝒜𝓃𝓎 𝓌𝒶𝓇𝑔𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝑔𝓇𝑜𝑔𝓃𝒶𝓇𝒹 𝒸𝒶𝓃 𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝒽𝑒𝒶𝒹.  𝑅𝑒𝓁𝑒𝒶𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑅𝒫𝒢 𝒾𝓃 𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝑒𝓃𝓈𝓊𝓇𝑒 𝓃𝑜 𝓏𝑜𝑜𝓂𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓅𝓁𝒶𝓎 𝒾𝓉.

Why would anyone take the work required to do that? I mean converting everything to D100 since it's going to work just like D20 and if I wanted to use an already published module then I need to ALSO do the conversion?

Why would ANYONE buy such a game? I fail to see the appeal.

Quote from: yosemitemike on May 31, 2024, 07:54:05 PMI said that it's too vague and ill-defined to have any value as a category of product. 

And I just outlined what a person has to do to understand what the category is about. Read up on a corpus of out of print book and its history then work with either the themes and/or mechanics found therein.

Quote from: DocJones on May 31, 2024, 06:50:22 PM𝐼𝒻 𝐼 𝓊𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝒹𝟣𝟢𝟢 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝑒𝒶𝒹 𝑜𝒻 𝒹𝟤𝟢 𝒾𝓃 𝒶 𝐵𝒳 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃, 𝒾𝓉 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝒷𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝒾𝓉𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝒶𝓃𝓎 𝑒𝓍𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒟&𝒟 𝓂𝑜𝒹𝓊𝓁𝑒.  𝒴𝑜𝓊 𝓈𝓊𝒸𝒽 𝓂𝓊𝓁𝓉𝒾𝓅𝓁𝓎 𝓂𝑜𝓈𝓉 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓎𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒷𝓎 𝟧.  𝒜𝓃𝓎 𝓌𝒶𝓇𝑔𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝑔𝓇𝑜𝑔𝓃𝒶𝓇𝒹 𝒸𝒶𝓃 𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝒽𝑒𝒶𝒹.  𝑅𝑒𝓁𝑒𝒶𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑅𝒫𝒢 𝒾𝓃 𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝑒𝓃𝓈𝓊𝓇𝑒 𝓃𝑜 𝓏𝑜𝑜𝓂𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓅𝓁𝒶𝓎 𝒾𝓉.

While its true that if you just made the range 5-100 instead of 1-20, it would be the same system, that also means that other than the type of dice you use, and making all multipliers x5, it would not actually change anything at all. It's a completely aesthetic change of die rolled, and nothing more. So what would be the point?

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 01, 2024, 11:08:58 AM

Quote from: DocJones on May 31, 2024, 06:50:22 PM𝐼𝒻 𝐼 𝓊𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝒹𝟣𝟢𝟢 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝑒𝒶𝒹 𝑜𝒻 𝒹𝟤𝟢 𝒾𝓃 𝒶 𝐵𝒳 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃, 𝒾𝓉 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝒷𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝒾𝓉𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝒶𝓃𝓎 𝑒𝓍𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒟&𝒟 𝓂𝑜𝒹𝓊𝓁𝑒.  𝒴𝑜𝓊 𝓈𝓊𝒸𝒽 𝓂𝓊𝓁𝓉𝒾𝓅𝓁𝓎 𝓂𝑜𝓈𝓉 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓎𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒷𝓎 𝟧.  𝒜𝓃𝓎 𝓌𝒶𝓇𝑔𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝑔𝓇𝑜𝑔𝓃𝒶𝓇𝒹 𝒸𝒶𝓃 𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝒽𝑒𝒶𝒹.  𝑅𝑒𝓁𝑒𝒶𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑅𝒫𝒢 𝒾𝓃 𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝑒𝓃𝓈𝓊𝓇𝑒 𝓃𝑜 𝓏𝑜𝑜𝓂𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓅𝓁𝒶𝓎 𝒾𝓉.

While its true that if you just made the range 5-100 instead of 1-20, it would be the same system, that also means that other than the type of dice you use, and making all multipliers x5, it would not actually change anything at all. It's a completely aesthetic change of die rolled, and nothing more. So what would be the point?

Because while it can start with multiples of 5, it doesn't have to stay there, especially if you are only converting one-way (and not back to d20). Your d% game can have a 90% (18) or even a 92% (also 18 if you choose to convert back).

Quote from: HappyDaze on June 01, 2024, 02:03:05 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 01, 2024, 11:08:58 AM

Quote from: DocJones on May 31, 2024, 06:50:22 PM𝐼𝒻 𝐼 𝓊𝓈𝑒𝒹 𝒹𝟣𝟢𝟢 𝒾𝓃𝓈𝓉𝑒𝒶𝒹 𝑜𝒻 𝒹𝟤𝟢 𝒾𝓃 𝒶 𝐵𝒳 𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓈𝒾𝑜𝓃, 𝒾𝓉 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓁𝓁 𝒷𝑒 𝓆𝓊𝒾𝓉𝑒 𝒸𝑜𝓂𝓅𝒶𝓉𝒾𝒷𝓁𝑒 𝓌𝒾𝓉𝒽 𝒶𝓃𝓎 𝑒𝓍𝒾𝓈𝓉𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒟&𝒟 𝓂𝑜𝒹𝓊𝓁𝑒.  𝒴𝑜𝓊 𝓈𝓊𝒸𝒽 𝓂𝓊𝓁𝓉𝒾𝓅𝓁𝓎 𝓂𝑜𝓈𝓉 𝑒𝓋𝑒𝓇𝓎𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝒷𝓎 𝟧.  𝒜𝓃𝓎 𝓌𝒶𝓇𝑔𝒶𝓂𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝑔𝓇𝑜𝑔𝓃𝒶𝓇𝒹 𝒸𝒶𝓃 𝒹𝑜 𝓉𝒽𝒾𝓈 𝒾𝓃 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝒽𝑒𝒶𝒹.  𝑅𝑒𝓁𝑒𝒶𝓈𝒾𝓃𝑔 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝑅𝒫𝒢 𝒾𝓃 𝒸𝓊𝓇𝓈𝒾𝓋𝑒 𝓌𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝑒𝓃𝓈𝓊𝓇𝑒 𝓃𝑜 𝓏𝑜𝑜𝓂𝑒𝓇 𝒸𝑜𝓊𝓁𝒹 𝓅𝓁𝒶𝓎 𝒾𝓉.

While its true that if you just made the range 5-100 instead of 1-20, it would be the same system, that also means that other than the type of dice you use, and making all multipliers x5, it would not actually change anything at all. It's a completely aesthetic change of die rolled, and nothing more. So what would be the point?

Because while it can start with multiples of 5, it doesn't have to stay there, especially if you are only converting one-way (and not back to d20). Your d% game can have a 90% (18) or even a 92% (also 18 if you choose to convert back).

So now it's NOT the same game but a D% game, what is YOURS offering that makes it better than all the other D% games out there?

Since you're converting only one way stuff made for it it's not as direct to import into any OSR game as "converting" from OSE to White Box FMAG for example.

Quote from: RPGPundit on June 01, 2024, 11:08:58 AMWhile its true that if you just made the range 5-100 instead of 1-20, it would be the same system, that also means that other than the type of dice you use, and making all multipliers x5, it would not actually change anything at all. It's a completely aesthetic change of die rolled, and nothing more. So what would be the point?

Using OSR systems and modules based on white box to BX to 1E, I need do conversions on stat blocks between descending and ascending AC and also between tables, THAC0 and level bonuses.  Yes this is pretty trivial to do.  The point is we can change the dice mechanic in an OSR system and we'd still have OSR compatibility with a trivial conversion (x5). 

I think that sometimes several small changes do more to take away the feeling of being compatible than one big change.  Slap on Arms Law critical hits tables to D&D (how they started), then its "D&D with specific weapon, crazy critical hits."  The very height of the difference of that one things emphasizes that nothing else has changed. 

Of course, exactly what that feel is can move too.  D&D 3.5 is a slew of nothing but small, pervasive changes.  Most people felt like it was 3E+, but for me it was so many hodge-podge changes that it was even less "D&D as Hero System" that was the 3E goal, already somewhat away from the game in certain ways, but also less authentic than the original 3E try.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on June 01, 2024, 11:36:00 PMI think that sometimes several small changes do more to take away the feeling of being compatible than one big change.  Slap on Arms Law critical hits tables to D&D (how they started), then its "D&D with specific weapon, crazy critical hits."  The very height of the difference of that one things emphasizes that nothing else has changed. 

That is exactly how our group moved from 1E to Rolemaster.  We started using Arms Law with 1E and eventually went all the way to RM.  We stopped playing 1E in the 80's and I just picked it up again and have been running a campaign for 18 months or so.