Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 12, 2025, 09:30:27 PM

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.

Ha! Yet he's back to Grognardia.

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.

It not complicated. If you look at the at a comprehensive list of RPGs where the company or author choose to use the OSR as part of their marketing.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/browse?ruleSystem=45582-old-school-revival-osr&src=fid2140&productType=2140-core-rulebooks

There are several broad categories
1) RPGs that use classic D&D mechanics for fantasy and other genres
2) RPGs that use classic D&D fantasy theme but have their own mechanics.
3) RPGs that use a minimalist system. I don't think this is as prevalent as #1 and #2 but this category is steadily growing.

Most of the outliers, like Cy Borg, are there because that company's anchor product is an RPG that fits one of the above two. The company is also building on its "old school" or OSR identity so it ropes in most of its subsequent efforts under the OSR label.

Because OSR is not a trademark controlled by an entity, there will be some RPGs where the company or author tried to leverage old school or OSR. For the exact reason, ask the company or author. It usually won't make much sense in hindsight.

Quote from: Brad on March 12, 2025, 08:22:12 PMComplains about pedantry, posts stupid pics, calls people stupid for calling them stupid. Okay.

- Failed to understand what it was.

- Instantly throwing insults about the thing they didn't understands.

- Asks for clarification and gets it.

- Proceeds to double down on insulting people while confused at being insulted?

- Also pretends as though that's hypocrisy.

My brother in Christ learn to hold an L before you get handed a second one...
as an actual followup question though do you understanding what a conditional hypothetical is?

Like if I asked you "how would you feel if you hadn't had breakfast yesterday?" how would you answer?

Quote from: Zalman on March 12, 2025, 07:16:50 AM

Quote from: Fheredin on March 11, 2025, 10:21:50 PMPretty much the only thing people agree to not complain about is the medieval sword and sorcery genre using D20 mechanics with a mostly familiar D&D attribute tree.

Do they? That's a start at least: Not D20, not OSR?

I'm not saying that's literally true, but that it seems like everything which isn't vanilla D20 gets at least some flak for not using the roll-over D20 plus softly bound modifiers vs TN system. I have even seen a D20 game (The Black Hack) get flak for using a roll-under.

If I had to define OSR, I would say it's about making a familiar system easy for the GM to modify and customize, not just to run. As the D&D design tropes are designed to be easy to extend and modify and that's what almost all groups are experienced with, that is where the OSR critical mass permanently resides, even though OSR theoretically can support other core mechanics, and does to a limited extent. Moving that critical mass to another core mechanic would be such an earth-shattering event for OSR that you may as well abandon the OSR title and call it something else.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 13, 2025, 04:06:36 PM

Quote from: Brad on March 12, 2025, 08:22:12 PMComplains about pedantry, posts stupid pics, calls people stupid for calling them stupid. Okay.

- Failed to understand what it was.

- Instantly throwing insults about the thing they didn't understands.

- Asks for clarification and gets it.

- Proceeds to double down on insulting people while confused at being insulted?

- Also pretends as though that's hypocrisy.

My brother in Christ learn to hold an L before you get handed a second one...
as an actual followup question though do you understanding what a conditional hypothetical is?

Like if I asked you "how would you feel if you hadn't had breakfast yesterday?" how would you answer?

Whatever makes you feel better, chief. The righteous indignation is funny when contrasted with your utter contempt for the general banter that goes on in most threads. You're literally calling people who argue about minutiae in elfgames pedantic then make a new thread to engage in pure pedantry. Like, sure, I guess? Of course we're all pedantic, that's like the entire point of this hobby at some level, I cannot figure out if you're being serious here or literally think I did not understand your dumbass graphic. Of course I understood it, I also called it out for being stupid because it is literally obfuscating your own question. Intentionally to make a point? Just to fuck with people? Joking? If you want a serious answer maybe don't jump out of the gate with a chart that does nothing more than make fun of the thing you're asking about. I dunno, could work.

If you're just trolling, then that's cool, too.

Anyway, to actually contribute something valuable to this thread other than baiting a self-righteous moron, I do not consider the OSR to only be D&D-compatible games, and would lump Cepheus into the OSR along with stuff like that FASERIP clone. In my estimation, there was some sort of schism in the inception of whatever the OSR is and the D&D clone people think they're the REAL OSR, and the ones who think OSR is a paradigm, more about the ideas behind the playstyle and conceits. Any game that relies on rules rather than rulings isn't OSR, regardless of rules-set. So may something like Cairn which seems OSR isn't to me simply because of "player agency" which is modern horseshit. Also, old games aren't OSR because they embrace the aesthetic of the OSR; Traveller isn't OSR because it created an entire genre of games. But Cepheus is, because it clones Traveller and the purpose is to "revive" old-school gaming.

Quote from: Brad on March 13, 2025, 07:34:13 PMWhatever makes you feel better, chief. The righteous indignation is funny when contrasted with your utter contempt for the general banter that goes on in most threads. You're literally calling people who argue about minutiae in elfgames pedantic then make a new thread to engage in pure pedantry. Like, sure, I guess? Of course we're all pedantic, that's like the entire point of this hobby at some level, I cannot figure out if you're being serious here or literally think I did not understand your dumbass graphic. Of course I understood it, I also called it out for being stupid because it is literally obfuscating your own question. Intentionally to make a point? Just to fuck with people? Joking? If you want a serious answer maybe don't jump out of the gate with a chart that does nothing more than make fun of the thing you're asking about. I dunno, could work.

If you're just trolling, then that's cool, too.

Woah... I mean I really did think this was kind of just harmless bantering, but it so appears I've legitimately vexed you, which has made this go from kind of funny to really funny.

QuoteI cannot figure out if you're being serious here or literally think I did not understand your dumbass graphic.

I'll answer that by using your very own questions.

QuoteYou've basically just made a chart that says any RPG is an OSR game, so might as well just stop there. Good job.

Am I wrong? Claiming you have joke entries is fine, but then what's the actual point?

I mean trying to lie would have worked on someone with the memory of a gold fish I guess?

You know very few people have the skill set you do, to double... no! triple down on being wrong, and then also ass mad about being wrong! Have you considered running as a Democrat? you'd fit right the fuck in.

QuoteAnyway, to actually contribute something valuable to this thread

First time for everything I guess.

EDIT: Also you totally forgot to answer my question. How would you have felt had you not eaten breakfast yesterday?

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 13, 2025, 09:29:17 PMEDIT: Also you totally forgot to answer my question. How would you have felt had you not eaten breakfast yesterday?

Not the OP, but that's a stupid question as there are far too many variables to answer said hypothetical given we live in a universe where they did eat breakfast yesterday (or they did not in which case they feel exactly as they do now).

I mean, they might feel great because when they got truly hungry later they went to a really nice restaurant with friends.

They could be in agony because their hunger distracted them while they were driving and ended up in accident that required hospitalization.

They could be dead because scarfing food later caused them to choke when no one was around to assist.

We don't know because we didn't go down that pantleg of destiny; ergo its a stupid question as is any "well how would some past event have changed you" question... there are too many contingent variables from even a minor change to have any sort of meaningful answer to that sort of question. At best you're guessing and someone who thinks they're clever will try to discern some inner thought or feeling from how they answered because they refuse to just come out and ask directly.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 13, 2025, 11:04:42 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 13, 2025, 09:29:17 PMEDIT: Also you totally forgot to answer my question. How would you have felt had you not eaten breakfast yesterday?

Not the OP, but that's a stupid question as there are far too many variables to answer said hypothetical given we live in a universe where they did eat breakfast yesterday (or they did not in which case they feel exactly as they do now).

I mean, they might feel great because when they got truly hungry later they went to a really nice restaurant with friends.

They could be in agony because their hunger distracted them while they were driving and ended up in accident that required hospitalization.

They could be dead because scarfing food later caused them to choke when no one was around to assist.

We don't know because we didn't go down that pantleg of destiny; ergo its a stupid question as is any "well how would some past event have changed you" question... there are too many contingent variables from even a minor change to have any sort of meaningful answer to that sort of question. At best you're guessing and someone who thinks they're clever will try to discern some inner thought or feeling from how they answered because they refuse to just come out and ask directly.

Of the people on this site you're typically one of the most earnest individuals, so I'm going to take this answer at face value and not as a joke or bait, even though there is a part of me that kind of suspects otherwise.

I'll be up front in saying that by the logic presented here, it would effectively mean that conditional hypotheticals are useless because the universe contains too many variables. this logic is only true on the macro scale and extending time tables to lengths where human predictive ability can't reach.

among humans with general lateral reasoning ability they do it constantly and all the time. "What if that guy passing me had a gun, what would I have done?" "What if I had stepped out into traffic 6 seconds earlier than I had." "How would I have handled that confrontation had things gone differently?" these are real and valuable questions we ponder and ask ourselves to gain data on the possible.

Likewise we ask these things about the future. "What if I get mugged today?" "what if the stock X or Y goes up or down in the market?" so on and so forth. It's all well and good to say that hypothetical questions are futile and pointless, but it's factually untrue. it's effectively one of, if not the biggest mental trait which separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

everything else is nature learns through trial and error effectively, evolution doesn't look forward.

This question, specifically about breakfast and how one might feel having not had a hypothetical breakfast is a meme / political screening question. typically liberal leaning people tend to answer "But I had breakfast?" or something to that effect, while conservative people tended to answer like "I Would have been more hungry." in the sample sets that do have breakfast in the morning.

Basically pointing to what was very well already known, which is that conservatives tend to have better time preference stances. this is also in my opinion a good midwit filter. 

EDIT: Also it's very well proven people in the sub 90 IQ range generally can't understand conditional hypotheticals, meaning they have a hard time understanding cause and effect and action based  consequences.

I would also note TTRPGs and Video Games are basically brain games hacking this aspect of our psychology. "What if you were Y person in X world, what would you do?"

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 13, 2025, 11:25:34 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 13, 2025, 11:04:42 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 13, 2025, 09:29:17 PMEDIT: Also you totally forgot to answer my question. How would you have felt had you not eaten breakfast yesterday?

Not the OP, but that's a stupid question as there are far too many variables to answer said hypothetical given we live in a universe where they did eat breakfast yesterday (or they did not in which case they feel exactly as they do now).

I mean, they might feel great because when they got truly hungry later they went to a really nice restaurant with friends.

They could be in agony because their hunger distracted them while they were driving and ended up in accident that required hospitalization.

They could be dead because scarfing food later caused them to choke when no one was around to assist.

We don't know because we didn't go down that pantleg of destiny; ergo its a stupid question as is any "well how would some past event have changed you" question... there are too many contingent variables from even a minor change to have any sort of meaningful answer to that sort of question. At best you're guessing and someone who thinks they're clever will try to discern some inner thought or feeling from how they answered because they refuse to just come out and ask directly.

Of the people on this site you're typically one of the most earnest individuals, so I'm going to take this answer at face value and not as a joke or bait, even though there is a part of me that kind of suspects otherwise.

I'll be up front in saying that by the logic presented here, it would effectively mean that conditional hypotheticals are useless because the universe contains too many variables. this logic is only true on the macro scale and extending time tables to lengths where human predictive ability can't reach.

among humans with general lateral reasoning ability they do it constantly and all the time. "What if that guy passing me had a gun, what would I have done?" "What if I had stepped out into traffic 6 seconds earlier than I had." "How would I have handled that confrontation had things gone differently?" these are real and valuable questions we ponder and ask ourselves to gain data on the possible.

Likewise we ask these things about the future. "What if I get mugged today?" "what if the stock X or Y goes up or down in the market?" so on and so forth. It's all well and good to say that hypothetical questions are futile and pointless, but it's factually untrue. it's effectively one of, if not the biggest mental trait which separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

everything else is nature learns through trial and error effectively, evolution doesn't look forward.

This question, specifically about breakfast and how one might feel having not had a hypothetical breakfast is a meme / political screening question. typically liberal leaning people tend to answer "But I had breakfast?" or something to that effect, while conservative people tended to answer like "I Would have been more hungry." in the sample sets that do have breakfast in the morning.

Basically pointing to what was very well already known, which is that conservatives tend to have better time preference stances. this is also in my opinion a good midwit filter. 

EDIT: Also it's very well proven people in the sub 90 IQ range generally can't understand conditional hypotheticals, meaning they have a hard time understanding cause and effect and action based  consequences.

I would also note TTRPGs and Video Games are basically brain games hacking this aspect of our psychology. "What if you were Y person in X world, what would you do?"

.....(-pinches bridge of nose-)

First, if you bother to respond to this post, I suggest we move it over to Pundit's Forum. Second, the problem with liberal midwits has nothing to do with their ability to think through conditional hypotheticals in a theoretical vacuum. It's that they are very susceptible to gaslighting and peer pressure, so liberals generally have no problem thinking through conditional hypotheticals, but will abruptly stop thinking them through when they collide with MuhNarrative.

This is not a generalized inability to think; it is the fact these people have been put through psychological abuse, which leads them to have memory blackouts when handling certain hazardous thoughts.

Oh, and one more thing. What does any of this have to do with RPGs? I get the implication you see them as connected, but that connection isn't properly explained.

This took an interesting turn...Dunning-Kruger effect maybe?

Anyway, I'll answer with, "I never eat breakfast, so this question makes no sense." How about that? Does that help your confirmation bias about me being incapable of understanding hypotheticals? As stated, whatever makes you feel better.

To get back to the topic at hand, I had always assumed that meta-considerations like rulings not rules and the answer to an encounter not being on the character sheet... all have presence also within the system and mechanics. If not explicitly, then at least implicitly.

Like, if you don't have a system that can support that style of play, it's probably not an OSR game. Even if the players and DM want it to be, it won't likely turn out that way, because system does have its impact. The game you purchase and play will matter.

Personally, I believe that the style of play referenced by those claiming OSR is a playstyle is quite arguably best supported by roughly TSR compatible content. Some people might not agree, but at least it's worth noting that systemic ground is where OSR style play had its historical origin. As well as wherein many of its community conceits and assumptions emerged from.

As a disclaimer, I don't really have a strong experiential connection to "old school" gaming from "back in the day", so to speak. That said, I've at least played OSR games in the sense of system and assumption compatibility with that era, and that never would have been an option for me if not for the preservation of OSR systems. Mechanical systems, yes, not just ideals and vibes.

Quote from: Zalman on March 12, 2025, 07:16:50 AM

Quote from: Fheredin on March 11, 2025, 10:21:50 PMPretty much the only thing people agree to not complain about is the medieval sword and sorcery genre using D20 mechanics with a mostly familiar D&D attribute tree.

Do they? That's a start at least: Not D20, not OSR?

Quote from: Man at Arms on March 12, 2025, 12:55:23 AMThe top left corner of your chart, is strong.

Ha, I'm a bottom-left guy myself!

Issue is what's arguably the first OSR game (So Wikipedia tells me) is Castles and Crusades which is D20 based.

Quote from: Witch Hunter Siegfried on March 16, 2025, 01:06:21 AMIssue is what's arguably the first OSR game (So Wikipedia tells me) is Castles and Crusades which is D20 based.

Basic Fantasy was released on 1/12/2006
OSRIC was released on 6/23/2006
Labyrinth Lord was the third and was released on 8/4/2007
Then Matt Finch released Swords & Wizardry on 6/8/2008
OSRIC v2 (the current version) was released on 11/28/2008

2009 saw Ruins & Ronin, S&W White Box, Labyrinth Lord Revised
2010 saw The World of Onn, Dark Dungeons Backswords & Bucklers, LotFP Weird Fantasy RPG, Adventures Dark & Deep, S&W Complete.

Castles & Crusade wasn't an open RPG, so folks did little with it. Likewise OSRIC wasn't completely open so Labyrinth Lord, and Swords & Wizardry was used more often in the early 2010s.

More the Wikipedia article on the origins of the OSR is not complete. If you look at the source they cite, an article written by James

QuoteOf course, some old school gamers were unhappy with Castles & Crusades, which they saw as little more than a watered down version of Third Edition and utterly unlike earlier editions either mechanically or aesthetically. Thus was born the notion of a "restatement" or "retro-clone" game: using the SRD "to emulate as closely as is legally possible the game rules of another game."

James understates but this discontent was the driving force behind the birth of the OSR. During the runup a number of folks pointed out how the SRD could be leveraged to produce a near clone of AD&D 1e, but Troll Lords opted to go with a d20 lite using their Siege Engine. Matt Finch and Chris Gonnerman decided that the risk was worth and started Basic Fantasy and OSRIC. Matt had to drop out and pass it to Stuart Marshall, who completed OSRIC.

The importance of OSRIC and Basic Fantasy, especially after 2008, was that hobbyists who were fans of the classic editions now could do 95% of what they wanted to as far as sharing and publishing goes. That why those two releases marked the beginning of the OSR.

Furthermore this can be seen by the fact that OSR first was coined and used by the hobbyist who supported these early efforts, not by the hobbyists who supported Castle & Crusades.

Between 2006 and 2008, as far as systems go, everybody was waiting for Wizards to swing the C&D hammer. By 2009, it was clear that wasn't happening, and folks started working on systems, resulting in the round of systems released in 2009 and 2010. From then on, it grew from there. 

For a reasonably accurate list of systems whose author either used the OSR label or were labeled as OSR up to 2012, see the below
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ar9Wm_5gI_1TdGlyZHpwRHFoU2pEMng0NkhqTlJEYmc

For a more complete list of people who opted to use the OSR Label (often retroactively) see below
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/browse?ruleSystem=45582-old-school-revival-osr&src=fid45582&page=1&sortBy=oldest

One focuses on systems it doesn't capture releases on independent website like Basic Fantasy but you clearly see the steady ramp up over the early 2010s.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/browse?ruleSystem=45582-old-school-revival-osr&src=fid2140&sortBy=oldest&productType=2140-core-rulebooks&page=1

OSRIC was specifically written to publish AD&D modules though, wasn't it? That's my problem with some of those games, they were never intended to be played, only referenced and used to circumvent copyright law. And it shows.