Quote from: jhkim on March 11, 2025, 03:06:22 PMThis is what I'm stuck with in Socratic-DM's question in the OP. I can understand saying that the OSR includes games that are in the same genre as D&D (dungeon-crawling fantasy) and have some common feel, even if they don't have classes or six attributes or d20 attacks or saving throws.
But if we then extend that to other genres, then what does it mean to be OSR?
I'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.
(https://i.ibb.co/S4DjxXPw/OSR-Chart.png)
I have created a handy-dandy chart that
roughly covers where I think most OSR games land, with a couple jokes inserted, the only ones I'd argue are for sure OSR games are the ones in PP, NP, PN, NN, I'll also include PR because I actually couldn't think of anything that went there and it blurs with NN and PN a lot.
As to RP, I think that one people could genuinely disagree on, I count things like Maze Rats, but I wouldn't pin my pride on it the same way some of the others.
As 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.
Fun Fact: every game in the chart is something I own in at least PDF form, Humble Bundle is nice.
Aright now let the bloodsports and debates start.
You've basically just made a chart that says any RPG is an OSR game, so might as well just stop there. Good job.
Quote from: Brad on March 11, 2025, 08:19:21 PMYou've basically just made a chart that says any RPG is an OSR game, so might as well just stop there. Good job.
You're the kind of person that answers rhetorical questions.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 11, 2025, 08:44:34 PMQuote from: Brad on March 11, 2025, 08:19:21 PMYou've basically just made a chart that says any RPG is an OSR game, so might as well just stop there. Good job.
You're the kind of person that answers rhetorical questions.
Am I wrong? Claiming you have joke entries is fine, but then what's the actual point?
Quote from: Brad on March 11, 2025, 09:06:18 PMQuote from: Socratic-DM on March 11, 2025, 08:44:34 PMQuote from: Brad on March 11, 2025, 08:19:21 PMYou've basically just made a chart that says any RPG is an OSR game, so might as well just stop there. Good job.
You're the kind of person that answers rhetorical questions.
Am I wrong? Claiming you have joke entries is fine, but then what's the actual point?
You 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.
Here I'll use another chart as an example
(https://i.ibb.co/67y8mjQY/i-was-always-amazed-by-the-pdw-definition-v0-jito6bcg8ica1.webp)
This Chart is about what a PDW is (portable Defense Weapon) in PP column we see the FN P90, everyone with a military background agrees a P90 is a PDW, period, all the other entries are just descending examples where the argument becomes fuzzier and fuzzier, this is not something the OP claims makes any and all things a PDW, an M242 Bushmaster is not a PDW and nobody would consider it that, it's to show a logical extreme.
(https://cuberule.com/assets/09_sandwich.jpg)
Here is one for sandwiches.
Where would a hotpocket appear on the sandwich alignment chart? Also I like games that fit into the top left 4 grid spaces of the OSR alignment chart.
So, based on your charts, if you take a copy of Labyrinth Lord and a copy of Basic Fantasy and you place a copy of WEG d6 Star Wars between them, you get Stars Without Number (or a hot dog)?
I feel like for me it's moreso a structure based definition than a doctrine based definition that I am drawn to.
I have no earthly idea what the spirit of old school roleplaying is, because not only was I not alive back then to experience it personally, but even those who were indeed alive back then cannot seem to agree en masse. What I do know is that the rules and systems from back then are things that survive to this day, and I can roughly tell if an adventure, expansion, system or product is compatible with them.
I feel like as we move further and further away from that era, the exact experiential vibes will fade but the mechanical systems will remain. So yeah, compatibility and/or extensibility with original TSR content is my understanding of the term. And I think that's likely to grow more and more relevant as time passes.
I find the OSR alignment chart amusing; it's like admitting the answer you seek is Lovecraftian and if you actually could answer, "what is an OSR game" you would also start mumbling gibberish right before a Shoggoth appears out of a summoning circle you unknowingly traced during your rantings. /CoC PTSD
In all seriousness, OSR is in theory a bunch of GMing advice and in practice, it's what people who call themselves OSR players will buy and not complain about afterwards. Pretty 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. Mechanics on top can generally be changed ad hoc, in part because it's D20 and we're talking about players and GMs with decades of experience specifically in D20 games. If the GM doesn't like one the designer wants to include...YEET!
Quote from: Fheredin on March 11, 2025, 10:21:50 PMMechanics on top can generally be changed ad hoc, in part because it's D20 and we're talking about players and GMs with decades of experience specifically in D20 games. If the GM doesn't like one the designer wants to include...YEET!
This sounds to me like the spirit of OSR. Mess with the rules until fun/immersion is achieved.
I have heard two different definitions of OSR:
1. A game that is compatible with original TSR modules or a module/adventure that is compatible with games that are compatible with original TSR modules.
2. Any RPG game published before 1988.
I have also come across the term NuSR in reference to modern games designed for classic style fantasy gaming and dungeon crawling but mechanically incompatible with TSR modules.
The 1988 limit is set (to the best of my knowledge) because of the introduction of Cyberpunk games by R. Talsorian games in 1988 that were a complete departure from the dungeon crawling aspect of early RPGs and of war games from whence RPGs derived.
I don't have a dog in the fight, personally. However, OSR has become a marketing badge that largely follows definition 1. in most cases.
I think that the introduction of Cyberpunk 2013 and Cyberpunk 2020 was the best thing to happen to RPG gaming since TSR published the original D&D booklets. It has informed my play style and shaped my GM style quite a bit. I even play (and run) OSR games with these elements.
FYI: Traveller uses the 2d6 system that was popular for a lot of war games at the time. D&D 3e came out in 2000.
I know gamers love to argue/fight about pretty much everything.
When I use the term, I mean "An attempt to recreate any pre-3rd Edition of Dungeons & Dragons, without or without limited house rules incorporated, utilizing the OGL".
Also, whoever created the Sandwich chart doesn't seem to be distinguishing between "sandwiched", "wrapped", & "filled" for some reason. Madness!
The top left corner of your chart, is strong.
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!
If I can add my 2c:
OSR is "inspired by TSR D&D" by definition.
"Compatible with TSR D&D" is the most useful, IMO.
But the label is used as a "we think we can sell this to the OSR crowd" marker, which is why it sometimes include things like Mork Bork or Traveller clones.
(But you can have sci-fi OSR IMO, since AD&D has rules for Gamma World and Boot Hill conversions).
DCC is barely and doesn't call itself OSR. Cairn/Knave/Etc. are using "NSR" these days.
Knave, which the OP puts in the "any mechanics and any system", still use systems and mechanics that are reminiscent of D&d, such as the six ability scores, saves, HD, etc.
IMO, if it came out before 3e, then it's old school.
Is it the right definition? Don't know, don't care.
I distinguish between "Old School", which is a broad historical or aesthetic term, and "OSR," which is a term of art describing those games which consciously and deliberately derive themselves from Gygax-era D&D in reaction against WotC-era D&D and/or non-D&D games.
:)
The OSR is a consumer base, not a game esthetic/description.
Quote from: 216V0 on March 11, 2025, 09:34:04 PMWhere would a hotpocket appear on the sandwich alignment chart?
By the chart...
Structure Rebel (while you can argue there's two pieces of bread, they're fused together with the contents inside, so "food enveloped in -any- way by a containing food"), Ingredient Neutral (the -default- Hot Pocket is chunks of ham or pepperoni slices, with cheese pieces, and while I want to say "sauce" it's more accurate to probably just call that grease. I'd say it fits the "broader scope of savory ingredients", but I'm willing to concede that it's not so much the ingredients as their cut that makes me think "neutral". So Ingredient Neutral with Purist tendencies?).
I mean, this is a thread for pedantry, right? :-)
Anyone familiar enough with RuneQuest, Legend, BRP or Gurps communities want to comment on what those folks think about the games being OSR or not?
Quote from: Ruprecht on March 12, 2025, 10:38:16 AMAnyone familiar enough with RuneQuest, Legend, BRP or Gurps communities want to comment on what those folks think about the games being OSR or not?
These games are not OSR, they don't market themselves are OSR, and AFAICT the communities don't seem themselves as OSR either.
I must add this: RuneQuest, Legend, BRP are very similar. And the game simply didn't change in the last 40 years. There is no reason to even have an OSR.
D&D, OTOH, is now a very different game.
Which is one of the reasons I think OSR only makes sense within D&D. It is very specifically a reaction to the big changes in 3e (and even more) 4e.
BTW: GURPS didnt change that much either. There are still people that prefer 3e to 4e, although I don't really understand why, but the change is small enough that 3e/4e players are part of the same community in a way that 4e/5e D&D players are not.
Love alignment charts.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 12, 2025, 11:35:05 AMI must add this: RuneQuest, Legend, BRP are very similar. And the game simply didn't change in the last 40 years. There is no reason to even have an OSR.
They don't change (much) in tone or style. The basic mechanics are very similar, or at least you can chart a definite evolution (e.g. POW as attribute and magic points to POW as only attribute and magic points derived from it). However, once you get past the basic mechanics there are a lot of mechanical differences, which then have side effects in skills, combat rules, monster listings, etc. Yeah, not to the extreme that D&D does it over all its versions, but it's certainly there.
I can run Apple Lane in Legends with a "rough convert as I go" the same way you could run a B/X module in AD&D 2E. However, it would be better to spend a little time and actually convert it, especially since the baseline assumptions on the numbers move too.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 12, 2025, 12:01:10 PMQuote from: Eric Diaz on March 12, 2025, 11:35:05 AMI must add this: RuneQuest, Legend, BRP are very similar. And the game simply didn't change in the last 40 years. There is no reason to even have an OSR.
They don't change (much) in tone or style. The basic mechanics are very similar, or at least you can chart a definite evolution (e.g. POW as attribute and magic points to POW as only attribute and magic points derived from it). However, once you get past the basic mechanics there are a lot of mechanical differences, which then have side effects in skills, combat rules, monster listings, etc. Yeah, not to the extreme that D&D does it over all its versions, but it's certainly there.
I can run Apple Lane in Legends with a "rough convert as I go" the same way you could run a B/X module in AD&D 2E. However, it would be better to spend a little time and actually convert it, especially since the baseline assumptions on the numbers move too.
Yes, 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.
Quote from: the crypt keeper on March 12, 2025, 10:09:24 AMThe OSR is a consumer base, not a game esthetic/description.
100% wrong. It is an esthetic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_School_Renaissance
Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 12, 2025, 08:13:01 AMIf I can add my 2c:
OSR is "inspired by TSR D&D" by definition.
"Compatible with TSR D&D" is the most useful, IMO.
But the label is used as a "we think we can sell this to the OSR crowd" marker, which is why it sometimes include things like Mork Bork or Traveller clones.
(But you can have sci-fi OSR IMO, since AD&D has rules for Gamma World and Boot Hill conversions).
DCC is barely and doesn't call itself OSR. Cairn/Knave/Etc. are using "NSR" these days.
Knave, which the OP puts in the "any mechanics and any system", still use systems and mechanics that are reminiscent of D&d, such as the six ability scores, saves, HD, etc.
If there was one major thing I'd change, is I'd swap Knave and DCC places, my probable mindset when making this was probably that, at least "early" on in the OSR for whatever reason DCC was sort of included and thought of in the OSR sphere, though I am aware it has some radical departures.
Another thing I'd probably change is Have the structure columns go from Purist being TSR Clone, neutral being TSR compatible, and radical being incompatible.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 12, 2025, 11:35:05 AMQuote from: Ruprecht on March 12, 2025, 10:38:16 AMAnyone familiar enough with RuneQuest, Legend, BRP or Gurps communities want to comment on what those folks think about the games being OSR or not?
These games are not OSR, they don't market themselves are OSR, and AFAICT the communities don't seem themselves as OSR either.
I must add this: RuneQuest, Legend, BRP are very similar. And the game simply didn't change in the last 40 years. There is no reason to even have an OSR.
D&D, OTOH, is now a very different game.
Which is one of the reasons I think OSR only makes sense within D&D. It is very specifically a reaction to the big changes in 3e (and even more) 4e.
BTW: GURPS didnt change that much either. There are still people that prefer 3e to 4e, although I don't really understand why, but the change is small enough that 3e/4e players are part of the same community in a way that 4e/5e D&D players are not.
I have to say that I find your outlook fascinating. I am not sure how you draw these conclusions and you are welcome to them. I also have run RQ here and there and I run old school editions, including the re-release of RQ2 and while I am not wearing an OSR hat or vest while doing so, I am participating in an older style of play, which is what it is about. You are still free to call it what you will though.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 11, 2025, 09:17:22 PM(https://cuberule.com/assets/09_sandwich.jpg)
Here is one for sandwiches.
I have no real experience with the OSR but anyone who thinks a pop tart is a sandwich needs to be permanently banished to the tumblr wastelands of the internet. :) I'm also slightly offended that a hotpocket didn't make any category.
Quote from: bat on March 12, 2025, 01:25:21 PMQuote from: Eric Diaz on March 12, 2025, 11:35:05 AMQuote from: Ruprecht on March 12, 2025, 10:38:16 AMAnyone familiar enough with RuneQuest, Legend, BRP or Gurps communities want to comment on what those folks think about the games being OSR or not?
These games are not OSR, they don't market themselves are OSR, and AFAICT the communities don't seem themselves as OSR either.
I must add this: RuneQuest, Legend, BRP are very similar. And the game simply didn't change in the last 40 years. There is no reason to even have an OSR.
D&D, OTOH, is now a very different game.
Which is one of the reasons I think OSR only makes sense within D&D. It is very specifically a reaction to the big changes in 3e (and even more) 4e.
BTW: GURPS didnt change that much either. There are still people that prefer 3e to 4e, although I don't really understand why, but the change is small enough that 3e/4e players are part of the same community in a way that 4e/5e D&D players are not.
I have to say that I find your outlook fascinating. I am not sure how you draw these conclusions and you are welcome to them. I also have run RQ here and there and I run old school editions, including the re-release of RQ2 and while I am not wearing an OSR hat or vest while doing so, I am participating in an older style of play, which is what it is about. You are still free to call it what you will though.
I think my conclusions are explained in my post, but let me know if anything is unclear.
RQ 2 is certainly "old school" because it is an old game/style, but runequest is not part of the "OSR" (old school
renaissance) as defined by most OSR products (and wikipedia etc).
Notice neither RQ 2 or the current Runequest use the OSR label (nor does GURPS or TFT).
These games do:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/browse?ruleSystem=45582-old-school-revival-osr
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.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 12, 2025, 01:58:55 PMQuote 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.
(https://i.ibb.co/S4DjxXPw/OSR-Chart.png)
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(https://cuberule.com/assets/09_sandwich.jpg)
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 PMQuote from: Socratic-DM on March 11, 2025, 09:17:22 PM(https://cuberule.com/assets/09_sandwich.jpg)
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 PMQuote 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. :D
Quote from: Ratman_tf on March 12, 2025, 09:30:27 PMQuote 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. :D
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 AMQuote 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 PMQuote 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 PMQuote 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 PMQuote from: Chris24601 on March 13, 2025, 11:04:42 PMQuote 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 AMQuote 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.
OSRIC is actually pretty great in that it's notably easier for new players to comprehend and reference than AD&D 1e. I'm currently running a game that blends it as the core engine with some AD&D and Dragon optional character expansion stuff. A lot of the players ignored a fair bit of the latter when building their characters out of a preference for OSRIC's comparative simplicity. They've also said that AD&D is written and organized in a headache inducing fashion for them, much though I kinda like the prose more for that side of things, myself.
Quote from: Brad on March 16, 2025, 03:14:33 PMOSRIC 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.
Only OSRIC was released as a publisher's reference. When reports filter back to Stuart Marshall that people were using it as their primary reference he did version 2 as a standlone as RPG.
As for the copyright status, OSRIC is not a verbatim copy but its own expression of the ideas behind AD&D 1e, using the combination of terms made available by Wizards as open content under the OGL. With OSRIC v3 on the horizon, based on the Creative Common version of the 5e SRD with the same combination of terms, the remote chance that the OGL will be "revoked" is a non-issue going forward.
In short, give it a rest. That argument has been lost. In addition, the changes wrought by digital technology, print on demand, and the Internet are available to anybody with their own ideas of "what ought to be" within the time and budget of a hobby. Take advantage of that to show the rest of us how we are doing it wrong.
Quote from: KindaMeh on March 16, 2025, 04:00:18 PMOSRIC is actually pretty great in that it's notably easier for new players to comprehend and reference than AD&D 1e. I'm currently running a game that blends it as the core engine with some AD&D and Dragon optional character expansion stuff. A lot of the players ignored a fair bit of the latter when building their characters out of a preference for OSRIC's comparative simplicity. They've also said that AD&D is written and organized in a headache inducing fashion for them, much though I kinda like the prose more for that side of things, myself.
OSRIC v3 will be launching on Backerkit fairly soon.
https://www.backerkit.com/c/projects/mythmere-games/osric-3/launch_party
Quote from: estar on March 16, 2025, 07:55:45 PMQuote from: KindaMeh on March 16, 2025, 04:00:18 PMOSRIC is actually pretty great in that it's notably easier for new players to comprehend and reference than AD&D 1e. I'm currently running a game that blends it as the core engine with some AD&D and Dragon optional character expansion stuff. A lot of the players ignored a fair bit of the latter when building their characters out of a preference for OSRIC's comparative simplicity. They've also said that AD&D is written and organized in a headache inducing fashion for them, much though I kinda like the prose more for that side of things, myself.
OSRIC v3 will be launching on Backerkit fairly soon.
https://www.backerkit.com/c/projects/mythmere-games/osric-3/launch_party
Thanks for the heads-up!
If the author says it is OSR. Doesn't mean I will like it, though.
Quote from: estar on March 16, 2025, 07:54:56 PMIn short, give it a rest. That argument has been lost. In addition, the changes wrought by digital technology, print on demand, and the Internet are available to anybody with their own ideas of "what ought to be" within the time and budget of a hobby. Take advantage of that to show the rest of us how we are doing it wrong.
What argument? I literally said OSRIC existed initially to publish modules for AD&D and you agreed.
Quote from: Brad on March 17, 2025, 10:31:14 AMWhat argument? I literally said OSRIC existed initially to publish modules for AD&D and you agreed.
Quote from: Brad on March 16, 2025, 03:14:33 PMThat'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.
Yeah...exactly. They are dry reference books. For instance, OSE is devoid of any flavor that makes B/X actually interesting to read.
Are you just butthurt or something because I think OSRIC is boring? Sure seems like it.
I mean, I do think OSRIC is a game. Even one that my players prefer to AD&D (the heathens XD). Tastes will differ, I suppose.
Heck, also arguably a game with better layout than its inspirations, though I feel the relative lack of options/unique prosaic feel compared to AD&D are a thing.
Like most games, it's a mixed bag.
Honestly, some of what was great about the old games layouts from my perspective were the unique weird stuff and conversational vibe. That said, I can also empathize with those who want the product to be more to the point, so to speak.
This thread has unfortunately made me want to A: pull out and run Labyrinth Lord again, and B: eat a BLT.
On non D&D RPGs, I would suggest the more generic category of "Plain old Old School" rather than OSR. Runequest, GURPS, Tunnels & Trolls, BRP, Traveller, etc. have for the most part weathered the big changes that made D&D deviate over time. They are all decidedly Old School but there's no revolution to them, because they never revolted from their source games. I think this is the best way to look at why OSR is a distinctly D&D thing. From that angle, the chart should really focus on those games that appear to be trying to mimic one or more of the older editions of D&D, and reflect how closely or far that variant spins from it. The bottom right of the chart (imo) should have oddities like Torchlight or Dungeon World or something; stuff like Vampire and Star Wars D6 are all, ultimately, either old school or 90's era (Vampire is definitely not Old School in my book, nor does it have anything to do with OSR).
Quote from: KindaMeh on March 17, 2025, 03:47:47 PMI mean, I do think OSRIC is a game. Even one that my players prefer to AD&D (the heathens XD). Tastes will differ, I suppose.
Heck, also arguably a game with better layout than its inspirations, though I feel the relative lack of options/unique prosaic feel compared to AD&D are a thing.
Like most games, it's a mixed bag.
Honestly, some of what was great about the old games layouts from my perspective were the unique weird stuff and conversational vibe. That said, I can also empathize with those who want the product to be more to the point, so to speak.
This is why I always prefer to grab actual 1E AD&D (or 2E) books and run with that than something like OSRIC....which is an excellent utility, but mainly there to let 3PP keep printing 1E compatible stuff.
Quote from: estar on March 16, 2025, 07:55:45 PMOSRIC v3 will be launching on Backerkit fairly soon.
https://www.backerkit.com/c/projects/mythmere-games/osric-3/launch_party
And just to troll you some more, I signed up to back this...because even though OSRIC is boring as fuck, it's a good AD&D reference. You need to lighten up, sir.
Quote from: Ruprecht on March 12, 2025, 10:38:16 AMAnyone familiar enough with RuneQuest, Legend, BRP or Gurps communities want to comment on what those folks think about the games being OSR or not?
According to some. Thats all OSR.
According to some 5e is OSR.
According to some watching grass grow is OSR
It lost its meaning really fast and even near the start no one could agree on what it was.
Quote from: Omega on March 19, 2025, 06:47:01 AMIt lost its meaning really fast and even near the start no one could agree on what it was.
Well at the beginning some folks wanted it to mean more than the group of hobbyists that played, promoted, and published for classic editions of D&D.
My experience the above is an accurate summation of what has been defining the OSR for the past 18 years. Most of what gets labeled as OSR can trace a creative path to a classic edition either in terms of mechanics or theme. Sometimes both.
But if someone wants it to be more than that like a design ethos or encompassing all RPGs published back in the day, then they will be frustrated.
In the beginning, the meaning and purpose of the OSR were clear and simple. It was people using the OGL to recreate older editions of D&D that were no longer officially available. They were made for people who wanted to play those older editions and use content made for them without paying through the nose on the secondary market for out of print books. Later OSR games took those basic idea and applied them to other genres. They were not reproductions of older D&D editions but kept the basic mechanical concepts and, to some extent, play style. I think OSR works best when defined this way. If it's stretched much beyond that, it ceases to be a meaningful term. I don't mean just for marketing purposes. I mean in general. At the extreme in the bottom right of that chart, it becomes an entirely meaningless term that describes anything, everything and nothing. Every rpg ever is an OSR game.
There's a certain degradation of subculture terminology that happens when these terms become more widely used by people who don't know or care how or why they were coined in the first place. The distinction between low and high fantasy is a common example. Originally, it was coined to distinguish fantasy series that take place in a fantasy version of the real world (low fantasy) from ones that take place in a made up world (high fantasy). People saw low vs high and assumed it meant the amount of fantastic stuff in the setting. They couldn't be fucked to understand why the terms were coined or what they actually meant. Now we have something like the Black Company being called low fantasy because magic is scarce. The term OSR has undergone the same sort of degradation. Now it means any old game or anything that calls back to them in some way or anything that has a vaguely defined old school "vibe" or pretty much anything. I have seen Dungeon World called an OSR game because it has dungeon crawling in it.
Quote from: yosemitemike on March 19, 2025, 07:51:09 PMNow we have something like the Black Company being called low fantasy because magic is scarce.
Black Company is called fantasy just because it has swords. It's not even that in my opinion. Just military fiction with the weapons swapped out.
For those into the OSR, do you think the multiple meanings of the word that "R" stands for factors into the potential confusion? Renaissance, revival, rules, etc.
Quote from: RNGm on March 20, 2025, 07:56:34 AMFor those into the OSR, do you think the multiple meanings of the word that "R" stands for factors into the potential confusion? Renaissance, revival, rules, etc.
No
It is the fact it is used by a kaleidoscope of different individuals and companies centered around classic edition mechanics and themes. This is fundamentally unlike anything in the industry or hobby except in one case. Most terms are the result of marketing or branding efforts and dominated creatively by whoever originated it.
The exception?
RPG
RPG was an organic term used to describe the hobby and industry that sprang up after the release of OD&D, whose exact definition is still a matter of debate to this day. Like OSR, the debate is centered around things "like D&D," and heated arguments are over where the boundaries lie.
For OSR like RPG, it ultimately doesn't matter where boundaries are. While useful in some context you still have to do the extra things in terms of marketing and writing to explain what the product/work is about. RPG or OSR are not magic wands that will grant useful knowledge about what you did. You always to go a step further to explain what kind of RPG you are offer or what kind of OSR product.
One further comment
The reason that Old School Renaissance/Revival/Ruckus/Revolution gain traction wasn't because of the exact title.
It was because of its shorthand, namely OSR vs. TSR.
When you say it, it just sounds right. Plus it fun in that you can kitbash all kinds of evocative logos and design with the initials.
There are two main issues with the use of OSR. One is using Old School to describe a classic D&D centric niche. This has rubbed many the wrong way since day one.
My view is tough, unlike classic D&D, Classic Traveller, Classic Runequest, Rolemaster, etc. Never needed a revival, their IP owners, and hobby communities managed to keep them alive across decades. The reason and how it was kept alive meant that many of the popular old school systems didn't need the help that classic D&D did. Sure there were a few like The Fantasy Trip that were in a similar boat to D&D. But once somebody was allowed to handle the IP like Steve Jackson reclaiming his copyright. They often come roaring back.
The second is that people often use the label OSR to lump different groups who play, promote, and publish for classic Dungeons &D Dragon together that don't want to be associated with each other. In some cases, it involves personality clashes, but in most cases, it is a result of incompatible creative agendas. Sure, they are using the same classic edition mechanics and themes, but some groups do very different things with the material. So they don't like being labeled the same.
But people will still do it anyway.
I'm going to answer this before reading too much so it doesn't sway what I write. I don't profess to be an expert in this but I will state what I currently believe as fact for the purpose of answering the OP. OSR is first and foremost the early editions of D&D and all the innumerable clones connected to them. The term exists to differentiate between later D&D editions that are more popular. The beginning of the 21st century marks a sort of divide between old and new when it comes to gaming, though 3.5 is over two decades old now which probably lends to the confusion and blurring of the line. Sci-fi games built on top of old D&D rules further blurred the line, and it's interesting to note that West End Games' Ghostbusters doesn't seem right to label as OSR for a few reasons (not to mention it pioneered narrative D6 which is seen as a modern trend currently). It doesn't have enough crunch, grittiness, and obscure roll tables to really feel like OSR. West End Games' Star Wars feels like it sits squarely on the line-- old enough and ticks many of the boxes but perhaps not gritty enough and too futuristic (even though it takes place long, long ago and all that)? I'm not sure anyone would struggle to call Metamorphosis Alpha OSR, but it was created by TSR, which brings me to another point. It may be that OSR and TSR are similar acronyms and create an association in our minds which was deliberate or accidental but certainly lends to lumping TSR games into the OSR category without question. You gotta have those weird roll tables and charts to compare stuff against, though. Something doesn't feel OSR to me personally if you're not referencing some kind of huge table frequently. Those old superhero games may or may not be OSR, but they certainly feel mechanically so. As a disclaimer, I have very little experience with actually playing systems before the turn of the century so feel free to correct what I've stated.
I group games into the D&D family if they have two these three things.
1. Six stats of STR DEX CON INT WIZ CHA.
2. Characters all have a defense stat called Armor Class.
3. Magic uses Vancian memorization slots.
I say you need two out of three to be OSR because many house rules that have been introduced over the years swap out one of those. A roll-under stat system instead of enemies AC, magic that use power points or spells per day for magic, martial classes gaining stamina points and training to pull off special moves from a list (it's their version of spells), and so on.
Some games are so modified they're unique now. Palladium Fantasy started as a HEAVY modification of D&D, but it's divergent enough to be considered as a new game. The Black Hack series is also far enough away to be considered a new game, but it's not for some reason.
I get that the distinction is not clear. It's just the way I think.