Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 12, 2025, 01:58:55 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 12, 2025, 12:42:50 PMYes, exactly; maybe they are different like AD&D 1e is from 2e or B/X, but certainly not like 2e/3e, 3e/4e or 4e/5e.

Specifically, my point is that RQ is somewhere in between.  Could argue whether RQ2 or 3 to MRQ or Legends is closer to a B/X to 2E conversion or a 2E to 3E conversion in difficulty.  However, there is definitely and notably more effort involved in doing it cleanly for the RQ conversion than the B/X to 2E side.  If the GM doesn't care about making a clean conversion (perhaps justly, if only for themselves, running it on the fly), then it is a little murkier.

Of course, that invokes a whole other line of thought on slow-boil changes through modest version changes or rapid, notable version changes.  People think RQ didn't change much, because in any one version, it doesn't.  If you built a character in RQ 1 and took it through all the changes as the new editions gradually came out, it would hardly register.  There's no shock like there is in say, 2E/3E.  If you try the same trick going RQ 1 to latest Legends, it won't seem all that shocking at first, but the overall effort is going to about the same as 2E/3E, because the only practical way to do it is to take the concept and then rewrite the character from scratch, using the old character only as a rough guideline.

A similar dynamics happens when going Champions 1 to Champions 6, though that is more about redoing all the math, since the names of the mechanical widgets mostly stay the same.

Whereas, with D&D, it's the crazy jump with 3E and the even crazier jump with 4E that stands out.  If you want to go, say, AD&D 1E to 5E, then yeah, it's still rewrite using old character as concept, but it isn't any more difficult or time consuming than a several edition jump in Hero or RQ.  It's different kind of jump, that some people will find more or less annoying and puzzling, because of where the changes occur, but that's not the same as the difficulty of it inherently.

Personally, I found the Hero 4E/5E conversion so plain annoying that I refused to do it.  Same as the D&D 3E/3.5 jump.  I've got a better use of my time than redoing all the accounting for so little gain in clarity, prep time, or features.

I cant discuss with you in the specifics since I havent played much Runequest (I did play lots of CoC, however, plus reviewed some Mythras and read some RQ versions including Legend IIRC).

I'd assume the changes are less radical than D&D 2e/3e, since it changed roll high to roll low, the whole reasoning behind saving throws, AC, XP progression, caráter creation and so on.

AFAICT all these BRPish games are 1d00 roll low with the same 6-7 ability scores averaging 10, similar HP, armor, tests, etc.

It's all the same reasoning, even if details might differ.

But I dont know much about the specifics of the RQ editions.

Nice No True OSR logical fallacy you've got going on. Please try again. Oh wait, you have another thread where you commit the same fallacy.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 11, 2025, 08:05:53 PMI'm singling Jhkim out even though you're not the source of the problem, but I think this goes for everyone in the prior thread, but I wanted to make a thread that actually addressed the question, I should have suspected it would be over run by pedants and people wanting to basically bypass the question and argue about what is an OSR game, so this thread is for that topic now.

If pedantry was a sin, a good lot of you would be having a one way ticket to Hell, thankfully for you I'm not God.

I think everyone's pretty clear that neither Vampire nor Star Wars D6 are OSR. The line for the rest isn't very interesting to me.

I'd like to suggest a third dimension, though.

1) Setting and trappings
2) Playstyle and assumptions of play
3) Structure / mechanics

I might be off-base here, but it seems like Mutant Future has roughly the same playstyle and assumptions of play as early D&D. You're adventurers going into ruins, fighting monsters, and returning with loot. However, it has a completely different setting. There are no elves, dwarves, or magic - but you're still going

Conversely, I think Lion & Dragon has a different assumed playstyle. In being medieval authentic, there's more focus on society and war and/or political adventures (like the War of the Roses), and less on straight dungeon-crawling.

I'd be more curious about the spread of OSR games along all three of these axes.

I've read through legends and OpenQuest and I remember a lot of extra skills related to social interactions which I always consider a meta tag for story games. Probably brought in by Heroquest?

In fact I think OpenQuest has a whole section on social encounters as if it's equal to combat in some way and needs ways to include skills.

BRP, Exalted and Ars Magicka I would guess nobody thinks are OSR? If so, that's kind of another point in favor of structural definition, I guess.

Though obviously individual definitions may differ, and there is no objective right way to define something so long as the definition is not internally inconsistent.

On which note, I fear that a definition based on vibes would be oftentimes prone to distortion. In the sense that over time what people feel is old school might shift relative to the objective experiences that originally were being referenced.

Likewise, when folks say that OSR is just what a consumer base will buy with that label slapped to it, I feel like that goes even further. In the sense that not only will that not be consistent over time, but also the consumers may buy something labeled OSR for unrelated reasons. Or even without thinking it means the same thing to them. It's also in my eyes a bit of a cop-out to say that the definition of a thing is just whatever people agree the word means. I mean in practical terms maybe the word means what people think it means, but if the word doesn't mean the same thing over time or across groups, is it really the same concept being referenced?

You can make it a much more basic question and still not get a clear answer.  Let's mostly divorce it from any particular game:

- Game X, version 1.  Has a class called "fighter".  It has some mechanics that help it fight.

That's our baseline.  Now we have later:

- Game Y, version 1.  Has a class called 'warrior".  It has some mechanics that help it fight, not exactly like Game X fighter but very similar.

- Game Z, version 1.  Has no classes but has skills, and works almost exactly like Game X fighter in practice.

- Game X, version 2.  Still has a class called "fighter".  Mechanics have changes so much that a conversion takes some effort, produces approximately the same results as version 1, only goes about it differently.

Now, which one of the three later ones is most like the original? 

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 11, 2025, 09:17:22 PM

Here is one for sandwiches.

That sparked a thought.  A subway is a sandwich because people say "subway sandwich."  A wrap is not a sandwich because it has its own category, "wrap."  If something is in a different category, it's not OSR.  If something is not categorized then it may or may not be.  Simplistic and obvious, but I think it comes closer to how people categorize things than some of the other suggestions.

I consider anything before 3rd editon D&D "old school" simply due to the age and time period.
I consider OSR to be any game that takes into account the old school methods. Rulings over rules. Focus on scenario and situation to organically generate "story" over trying to design story into the gameplay. The "Chesterton's Fence" argument for old rules. Etc.

Why not ask Maliszewski to weigh in. Is he not the Pope of the OSR?

Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 12, 2025, 06:44:51 PMI consider anything before 3rd editon D&D "old school" simply due to the age and time period.
I consider OSR to be any game that takes into account the old school methods. Rulings over rules. Focus on scenario and situation to organically generate "story" over trying to design story into the gameplay. The "Chesterton's Fence" argument for old rules. Etc.

Much of that shift happened in late 1E and 2E periods, not with 3E. For example, 2E had mechanical proliferation with all of the kits and options for PCs in all the complete and option series:

The Complete Fighter's Handbook (1989)
The Complete Thief's Handbook (1989)
The Complete Priest's Handbook (1990)
The Complete Wizard's Handbook (1990)
The Complete Psionics Handbook (1991)
The Complete Book of Dwarves (1991)
The Complete Bard's Handbook (1992)
The Complete Book of Elves (1992)
The Complete Book of Gnomes & Halflings (1993)
The Complete Book of Humanoids (1993)
The Complete Ranger's Handbook (1993)
The Complete Paladin's Handbook (1994)
The Complete Sha'ir's Handbook (1994)
The Complete Barbarian's Handbook (1995)
The Complete Druid's Handbook (1995)
The Complete Ninja's Handbook (1995)

Player's Option: Combat & Tactics (1995)
Player's Option: Skills & Powers (1995)
Player's Option: Spells & Magic (1996)


I feel like this sort of thing is opposed to the trend of the current OSR.

Story focus happened even earlier. The Dragonlance modules started coming out in 1984, which paired novels with modules. The 2E Ravenloft modules and others were also far more linear plots compared to earlier. Compared to 2E, 3E was a shift away from story and back towards tactical wargaming.

Quote from: Mishihari on March 12, 2025, 05:59:48 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 11, 2025, 09:17:22 PM

Here is one for sandwiches.

That sparked a thought.  A subway is a sandwich because people say "subway sandwich."  A wrap is not a sandwich because it has its own category, "wrap."  If something is in a different category, it's not OSR.  If something is not categorized then it may or may not be.  Simplistic and obvious, but I think it comes closer to how people categorize things than some of the other suggestions.

To be fair, many submarine sandwiches are traditional sandwiches in that the bun is cut completely through and placed on both sides of the sandwich. It's just Subway that doesn't cut all the way through.

Quote from: blackstone on March 12, 2025, 01:20:39 PM100% wrong. It is an esthetic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_School_Renaissance

I get where you and the rest of the world are coming from, but when it comes to being useful, that is the only value I see in the term. Identifying the market you are trying to sell to. Otherwise, the term is fairly devoid of meaning at this point.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 11, 2025, 09:17:22 PMYou evidently don't understand what an structural/Doctrinal axis chart is. but you came in swinging all the same, you should take your own signatures advice.

Complains about pedantry, posts stupid pics, calls people stupid for calling them stupid. Okay.

Quote from: Brad on March 12, 2025, 08:22:12 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 11, 2025, 09:17:22 PMYou evidently don't understand what an structural/Doctrinal axis chart is. but you came in swinging all the same, you should take your own signatures advice.

Complains about pedantry, posts stupid pics, calls people stupid for calling them stupid. Okay.

Join the club. I especially love the logic behind pointing out the elephant in the room.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 11, 2025, 08:05:53 PMAs for the people asking "where is Traveller?" my answer is you're excluded because OSR has always been about TSR era D&D, it's the thing the got the most attention, and including it basically means anything from the late 70s to early 80s counts, and that's not a useful definition. Also you smell and any game that takes 40 minutes to make a character and that also has a chance you die at character creation is taking the piss.

i.e. "I don't like Traveller, so it can never be part of the popular kids club that I like." So Socratic that you can taste the Hemlock.

Quote from: bat on March 12, 2025, 06:47:30 PMWhy not ask Maliszewski to weigh in. Is he not the Pope of the OSR?

He got excommunicated over Dwimmermount.