Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 10, 2025, 05:17:23 PMso even in the genre I think it's weak in, it has strengths in some of the specific sub-genres.

Yeah, it can pretty do much anything. BUT there are certain games that can do 'specific genres' better. As you already mentioned superheroes for one. I'd want FASERIP for that.

So I could use it for X, but I probably wouldn't because Y is specifically designed (or just better) for that type of game. So it's versatility is also a bit of a weakness, if you are trying to shoe-horn it into a specific genre that is somewhat beyond it's capabilities.

However, that can also be said for a number of non-specific rules that claim that they can do anything. However, the truth is they probably won't be as good as the tried and tested rule set designed for that 'specific' genre, imo.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 10, 2025, 07:48:53 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 10, 2025, 07:29:18 PMLet's consider that statement, if I meant it as literal as you might imply, any OSR game that isn't a direct retroclone of 0e through AD&D 2e wouldn't count, which isn't a useful definition, merely that TSR era D&D is used as a guiding star, it can radically depart in a  structural or doctrinal way, but not both.

By that criteria, my own system counts as OSR.  Now, you can't see it, because it isn't published.  But I don't consider it OSR even though it is mildly compatible with B/X and AD&D modules with some conversion.  I would bet at least half the people on this forum who have experience with OSR would not consider it OSR. 

Once you make the criteria that wide, then your original assertion isn't to tautology territory yet, but it is casting coy glances that way.

Shrug I mean that's fair I guess, then were would you draw the line? because it would necessitate something be excluded which I think most reasonable people would say is OSR. my general metric for anything like this is: do people know what you roughly mean when you say it, and does it contain what everyone generally agrees falls under it.

and while there has been quite a bit of critique of my definition, I don't see many people offering alternatives.

If anything I should post my full "alignment chart" which uses structure and doctrine as the axis.

My criteria is that there isn't a definite, bright line. Instead, there are a bunch of boundaries.  Venn diagrams have been beat to death on this kind of comparison, but I think there is some utility there.

For example, do you have Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha--in that order--as your only stats?  Then you are firmly in the "attribute" circle on the diagram.  Do you have a few classes with bright lines between them?  Then you are at least close to the bullseye on the "class focused" circle on the diagram.  And so on.  Get included in enough of those, or at least really close just on the outside on some, and then most players would consider that OSR.  A little bit further out, we have a lot of "OSR adjacent" stuff.  It's not really inside the diagram enough, but you can see the relationship. 

By this criteria, a few big changes or a lot of small ones can put you out into adjacent or further territory.  Likewise, you can say a certain game is very much OSR in some respects while not so in others.  I'd put DCC in this camp.

Orthogonal to this is games that are "OSR in spirit" (which somewhat includes mine and does include DCC).  This is different mechanics in search of a similar game experience.

It used to be said by wags that with Hero System you could run any game you want--as long as you didn't mind it playing like the Hero System version of that game.  I found that mostly true.  I think a similar thing applies to OSR and related games--which is why D20 Star Wars gets criticism.

I think Kevin Crawford showed you CAN have an OSR game do skills-based stuff pretty well, so cyberpunk, sci-fi, high fantasy, and horror are all possible. That said, Steven Mitchell mentioned SW d20...I think that's where the OSR breaks down, is emulating SPECIFIC well-established worlds. WEG Star Wars is one of the best examples of this; an OSR version just won't be as good. You can make a decent videogame out of the rules-set, but TTRPG? Nope. Ghostbusters also would be a bad OSR game if by GB you literally mean the movies. Probably because it needs to be loose and fast and comedy does not translate well with a more rigid system, yet an OSR Paranoia would probably work just fine.

Anyway, my answer is OSR games work great for any genre, but specific properties/worlds probably need a game designed around their inherent conceits and that could end up looking a lot different.

At this point there are enough OSR games that you probably can find one that has all of the changes you like to houserule when you play.

For example I'll list off features I like.

1.  Stats you assign instead of randomly roll

2.  Opposed roll combat instead of Armor Class.  Aka Mano-e-Mano.

3.  Armor is a savings throw after you've been hit.

4.  Each weapon has a use, or baring that they're all identical so none are better or worse.

5.  Customizable characters so everyone can be unique by being good at something.

6.  Other genres using the same rules so we can have fun playing Star Wars or Super Heroes.

7.  Rules light.  I don't like reading a book bigger than the Gutenberg bible.

I'll admit I don't actually have an OSR that fits all that.

The closest game to this is Mini-Six Bare Bones, but it actually went from an opposed roll combat system to an Armor Class-like "static defense" to speed up gameplay.

The other games I like are Pocket Fantasy/Pocket Space and Tiny-D6.  These only have 3-4 of the features above, but that's because they're so rules lite that the other features just don't exist in their rules.

If I had to pick an OSR right now, maybe Shadowdark because it's popular, Bugbears & Borderlands, or Chanbara.

But, this goes back to my other post.  There are too many OSR games.  We're starting to get buyers paralysis. 

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 10, 2025, 07:46:22 PMBut the OP seems to be an invitation for hot takes, so here's one: The OSR is not good at "average joe" PCs.

My Majestic Fantasy RPG demonstrates otherwise.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 10, 2025, 07:46:22 PMThe basic structure of D&D is built on classes and special abilities.

The fact a system uses classes isn't the problem it what is done with the class what matters.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 10, 2025, 07:46:22 PMAverage people don't fit into archetypal classes and they don't have special abilities,

Then don't make your classes archetypal. As for special abilities they can work as part of a system that is grounded if they make sense in terms of the setting behind the system. In my Majestic Fantasy RPG, clerics are granted divine powers due to their faith. While these abilities are advantageous, they don't turn the character into a superhero. In certain situation like turn undead for clerics of Delaquain the goddess of honor and justice, it can lead to extraordinary situations. But then again fighting undead is an extraordinary circumstance.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 10, 2025, 07:46:22 PMSo, if you want to represent them with anything other than pure attributes, you need a skill and/or profession system.

Sure, because people can do things other than spellcasting and fighting, and if you want that to be more than notes on paper, then you need some mechanics to represent what they are better at outside of combat. I added a skill system to the Majestic Fantasy RPG, jettisoned the thief class from the Greyhawk supplement, and came up with Burglar and other rogue classes that represent folks that are better at things outside of combat and spellcasting: thugs, mountebanks, merchant adventurers, and Claws of Kalis (assassins).

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 10, 2025, 07:46:22 PMD&D and its derivatives actually play much better under the assumption that PCs (and classed NPCs) are special heroes with rare gifts.

It about the numbers and how much better a X level character is. With my Majestic Fantasy RPG, I started with OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry, Core because out of all the classic editions it is the most grounded. RAW a 10th level character is still vulnerable to a mob of lower-level opponents.

That plus treating class in the same way I did GURPS templates. Treating levels as life experience, thus like City State of the Invincible Overlord all NPCs have classes and levels. Finally with tweaks to the combat system to allow for low probability one-shot kills, me being able to run Majestic Wilderlands using my Majestic Fantasy system much in the same way I ran MW campaigns using GURPS.

The trick is to understand how D&D is developed. What options existed back in the day, the ones the Arneson and Gygax used and didn't use? Take that knowledge create a starting point and then iterate playtesting across multiple campaigns and multiple players until there is something that is compatible with classic D&D but plays more grounded.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 10, 2025, 07:19:01 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on March 10, 2025, 06:30:13 PMThat said, OSR is also limited by this. The OSR has a lot of grognard purity opinions ("this isn't OSR enough") which I don't pretend to understand beyond possibly being a mutant grandchild of OneTrueWayism. This means that the OSR community is one of the worst corners of the RPG space for exploratory design. OSR games may incorporate mechanics long after they are popularized by a few other games, and is rarely, if ever, the source of a new game mechanic. The OSR community is not going to let you take a fishing boat out to see and try to land a 30 pound grouper, or even just to write a game with the narrative of The Old Man and the Sea baked into something. Instead, OSR circles around established mechanics and design pillars quite tightly. Experimentation is at best not rewarded, and in some cases is met with open hostility.

I find that grognard assertion to be pretty baffling, I've never met in the wild people who talk about Onetruewayism, (and no twitter/X doesn't count) across the forums, discord servers and other places which are OSR orientated I have yet to meet this mythical grognard archetype people seem to insist exists.

I've seen a single youtube personality that kind of holds this opinion, but they also published two games that are fairly radical departures from 0E edition D&D, so they're a bit of an odd exception since they don't hold to their own doctrine.

Well, define "radical departure." See, this is why I spoke mostly in metaphor; RPG design terminology--especially in OSR--is an opaque fog of people building houses of cards with smoke rings. The only way to actually understand what's going on is generally to use a metaphor. But if you insist...

I am not really familiar with any OSR games which abandon more than 2 of the D&D design pillars of Combat, Exploration, and Roleplay. I think you can fairly argue that some introduce a fourth, but a fourth pillar is almost never as large as the others, and even if it were and you changed out another pillar, you would still be at least 50% D&D by design pillar count.

And here's where we will get to disagreeing: I don't think that's a radical departure. It's an average departure. However, I imagine you'll argue that any design pillar change is a huge deal and it completely changes the game. It isn't like that's wrong, but that I foresee the conversation getting hung up on the semantics of "radical departure"ness and not on the meat of the issue that some components of the core of D&D will always be there, and so we are arguing percentages, not essences.

That said, I do not know OSR particularly well and I would welcome being proven wrong. Some example games and dissections of their major design pillars will do the trick. Shouldn't require more than about 150 words per example.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 10, 2025, 07:56:43 PMShrug I mean that's fair I guess, then were would you draw the line?

Drawing the line doesn't matter; what matters is your creative goal. The fact is that there is a substantial group of hobbyists who make material that is designed in a way that you can take Keep on the Borderlands or Tomb of Horrors and run them as is. That's their choice. Incidentally, this is the choice I made with my system.

There are other hobbyists who don't care about that level of compatibility and make different creative choices. In the 18 years since then, we saw a diverse range of works shared or published that represent different levels of mechanical and/or thematic compatibility.

Yet throughout that time, the group of hobbyists focused on playing, promoting, and publishing the classic edition has remained. This is largely because as an out-of-print IP, there is no dominant publisher with the moral or (because of OSRIC/Basic Fantasy) legal authority to say otherwise or change what classic D&D means.

So who cares if there is a line or not? Just figure out a creative vision and see what you can do with it. If it happens to support classic material 'as is,' that's great. If its support is only partial, that works out for some folks. If it is its own thing that builds on classic edition themes, that also worked out for some folks. Just do the homework to avoid any pitfalls and forge ahead.

Quote from: Fheredin on March 10, 2025, 09:31:10 PMThat said, I do not know OSR particularly well and I would welcome being proven wrong. Some example games and dissections of their major design pillars will do the trick. Shouldn't require more than about 150 words per example.

Well like Seinfeld, my Majestic Fantasy RPG is about nothing in particular other than function as a description of what characters and creatures can do in a medieval fantasy setting. And what they can do is described at a medium-low level of detail and encompasses most things you could expect folks could do as if the medieval fantasy setting actually existed.

You could use my system to run a campaign centered around a community of basket weavers along the river Tammuz in the Land of the Two Kings. With the players living out the life of some of the characters in that community. Although I don't think that would be a very likely campaign it is possible. Back in 92, I did with GURPS run a campaign of 50 pt characters (plus 25 pt of disads) that centered around the life of the neighborhood of the City-State of the Invincible Overlord.

Granted it what just the one time but since the notes from that as well as the notes from my City Guard campaign, all Mage campaign, all Thief campaign, etc. were used part of developing my Majestic Fantasy RPG I made sure doing those campaigns were a possibility even while remaining 100% compatible with classic D&D.

Well that just the Roleplaying pillar right? No, because like GURPS, the focus of my system on what players could do, not on what they will be doing. GURPS and my Majestic Fantasy RPG doesn't care about the reason why a sword is swung, a spell cast, or a skill used. It just describes what could happen if that decision is made.

Wrapping it up
There is nothing wrong with focusing a system on pillars or specific things. I am pointing out that there are other ways of approaching the issue especially with classic edition mechanics. For me, the reason I do things this way is because my stuff is about running and supporting sandbox campaigns. Where players are free to try to trash the setting as their characters in the manner they see fit.

Part of what I write is about letting go of any preconceived notion of how the campaign should go. That what important to this approach is preparing the setting of the campaign in a way that it has a life of it own. How to manage that life throughout the campaign in a way that makes sense given what the players do or don't do as their characters. The importance of communicating context so the players know what their characters would know given the circumstances.

None of this involves the use of a system but rather is advice for how the referee should manage and organize a sandbox campaign. Hence my choice where the system is just a description of what characters and creatures can do.

Finally the canvas I choose to paint this on is adapting OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry.

So, this is a little wordy, but I believe I illustrated an example of a system that was designed and published/shared that supports all and none of the traditional pillars that people attribute to D&D.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 10, 2025, 08:52:42 PMMy criteria is that there isn't a definite, bright line. Instead, there are a bunch of boundaries.  Venn diagrams have been beat to death on this kind of comparison, but I think there is some utility there.

For example, do you have Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha--in that order--as your only stats?  Then you are firmly in the "attribute" circle on the diagram.  Do you have a few classes with bright lines between them?  Then you are at least close to the bullseye on the "class focused" circle on the diagram.  And so on.  Get included in enough of those, or at least really close just on the outside on some, and then most players would consider that OSR.  A little bit further out, we have a lot of "OSR adjacent" stuff.  It's not really inside the diagram enough, but you can see the relationship. 

By this criteria, a few big changes or a lot of small ones can put you out into adjacent or further territory.  Likewise, you can say a certain game is very much OSR in some respects while not so in others.  I'd put DCC in this camp.

Orthogonal to this is games that are "OSR in spirit" (which somewhat includes mine and does include DCC).  This is different mechanics in search of a similar game experience.

It used to be said by wags that with Hero System you could run any game you want--as long as you didn't mind it playing like the Hero System version of that game.  I found that mostly true.  I think a similar thing applies to OSR and related games--which is why D20 Star Wars gets criticism.

I'd pretty much wholly agree with this take then, I think it'd be a bit clunky to talk in these terms for all game systems in relation to one another, but the I see the truth of it all the same.

Quote from: estar on March 10, 2025, 09:28:57 PM

QuoteBut the OP seems to be an invitation for hot takes, so here's one: The OSR is not good at "average joe" PCs.

My Majestic Fantasy RPG demonstrates otherwise...

I probably should have said this in my first post, but some clarifications:

1) When someone asks "what does the OSR do?", you can't account for every homebrew and version of an OSR game out there. The only way I can see to answer that is in regards to a kind of platonic gestalt OSR game that encapsulates the most common features of the most typical games.

2) There's two much fuzzy language inherent in this conversation to have any kind of serious dispute. What is "OSR"? What does it mean to be "good at" something? Good compared to what? What's an "average joe"? You get the idea. All the important terms are either highly subjective or of dubious definition.

So I don't see a point in arguing about it, especially since I haven't read your game. I don't know what the class features in Majestic Fantasy do, so all I can say is this:

In the vast majority of versions of D&D that I have played or read (official or OSR), the majority of characters of about 4th level and above have capabilities that only make sense to me if you read them as at least extraordinary, if not superhuman. If you populate the game world with a high percentage of leveled characters, then in the strictest sense, yes you have made your PCs "average", but "average in a world full of extraordinary people" is not what most people would mean when they talk about "average joes PCs".

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 10, 2025, 11:03:38 PMI probably should have said this in my first post, but some clarifications:

1) When someone asks "what does the OSR do?", you can't account for every homebrew and version of an OSR game out there. The only way I can see to answer that is in regards to a kind of platonic gestalt OSR game that encapsulates the most common features of the most typical games.

Point #1 of your clarification is not germane to the point I made.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 10, 2025, 11:03:38 PMThe basic structure of D&D is built on classes and special abilities. Average people don't fit into archetypal classes and they don't have special abilities, so if you want to represent them with anything other than pure attributes, you need a skill and/or profession system.

Your criticism is not based on D&D but on classes and special abilities. My counterargument refutes that point. If you treat classes as packages/templates, if special abilities reflect a fantasy setting that is more medieval than fantastic. Then the issue you raise about the problem of class and special abilities doesn't exist.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 10, 2025, 11:03:38 PMWhen someone asks "what does the OSR do?", you can't account for every homebrew and version of an OSR game out there. The only way I can see to answer that is in regards to a kind of platonic gestalt OSR game that encapsulates the most common features of the most typical games.

While my work is not as well known as some authors, I am not obscure either, particularly among fans of sandbox campaigns, hexcrawl formatted settings, and things related to Judges Guild Wilderlands of High Fantasy. All of which have been a major thread of the OSR since the beginning alongside retro, gonzo, weird horror, gygaxian D&D, swords & sorcery, and others.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 10, 2025, 11:03:38 PM2) There's two much fuzzy language inherent in this conversation to have any kind of serious dispute.

Your confusion is understandable since unlike other niches of the hobby there are no dominant IP holder or publisher setting the creative tone of the niche. Instead it is a changing kaleidoscope of authors and publishers using the available open content to publish whatever interest them in the form they think best.

What is constant, a center so to speak, is the fact there is a group of hobbyists who promote, play, and publish for the classic editions of D&D, specifically OD&D, OD&D plus supplements, Holmes D&D, B/X D&D, BECMI D&D, AD&D 1e, and AD&D 2e. Some of these are more popular with B/X D&D, AD&D 1e, and OD&D w/ supplement being the three most popular.

I know this is the due I been involved with the community since its inception and also track numbers via the DriveThruRPG OSR categories and other sources.

Beyond the classic edition, the themes and the minimalist nature of some of the early editions like OD&D and B/X D&D have proven popular creating a constellation of related RPGs by various folks some of whom also publish both original systems and material supporting classic editions directly. Systems like DCC RPG, Shadowdark, and Mork Borg are part of this constellation.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 10, 2025, 11:03:38 PMWhat is "OSR"?

I noted this in 2009
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/07/old-school-renaissance.html

Go into further details about it origins in 2009
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/08/where-hell-old-school-renaissance-come.html

Noted that what the OSR is based on what those involved do.
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/08/those-who-do-and-old-school-renaissance.html

Commented on it is a mess
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2010/07/old-school-renaissance-is-mess.html

Again in more detail in 2014
https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-you-cant-game-osr.html

But probably the best I came up with what the OSR is

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 10, 2025, 11:03:38 PMWhat does it mean to be "good at" something? Good compared to what? What's an "average joe"? You get the idea. All the important terms are either highly subjective or of dubious definition.

Well, you are the one who mentioned it. I assumed you knew what you meant. I took it to mean a competent adventurer who, if standing there and got run through with a sword, would likely die or at the least be grievously injured. You are not the first person I debated about class and level. As an active participant in the Hero System and GURPS community back in the day, I understand well the appeal of those systems and others like Runequest and Harnmaster that depict characters far more grounded than classic D&D.

Shit on Google Groups these same arguments were played out on newsgroups going back to the early 80s.
https://groups.google.com/g/net.games.frp

So I don't accept your characterization of "average joe" as a fuzzy term. While true, it doesn't have a precise definition. In the context of your posts, it was obvious what you were getting at and criticizing.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 10, 2025, 11:03:38 PMSo I don't see a point in arguing about it, especially since I haven't read your game. I don't know what the class features in Majestic Fantasy do, so all I can say is this:

To summarize my counterargument, it can be done. The way this is accomplished is to treat classes as you would packages and templates in GURPS, BRP, Savage Worlds, or Hero System. That the numbers that define levels make sense in terms of life experience and ability. Just as the skill level and point system of the system I mentioned make sense in terms of life experience.

Now I realize that you don't have my system. But how I handled the above in my Majestic Fantasy isn't germane to my point. Which is you design a D&D style RPG in this way then it doesn't have the problem with class and level you assert.

But I do have a basic version that can be downloaded from here.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%20Majestic%20Fantasy%20Basic%20RPG%20Rev%2010.pdf

I am happy to answer questions about how elements of that relate to my overall point.

Also I have another free download that outline I how use the concept of classic D&D to make rulings.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/When%20to%20make%20a%20Ruling.pdf

Now, I wrote that in a more or less neutral tone as I intended it to be useful for people who like various styles of campaigns in the OSR whether it is gonzo, ground, weird horror, or whatever. But for me, when I consider the factors I outlined in that chapter, the results are consistent with a fantasy setting that is more medieval than fantastic.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 10, 2025, 11:03:38 PMIn the vast majority of versions of D&D that I have played or read (official or OSR), the majority of characters of about 4th level and above have capabilities that only make sense to me if you read them as at least extraordinary, if not superhuman.

I agree which is why I started with OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry and not a later edition. However, as I said in another post, when it comes to OD&D or B/X D&D RAW, a mob of low-level or low-HD characters/creatures remains a threat to 10th-level characters. However that is not sufficient if you want the campaign to feel more medieval in the same way it would if you were using GURPS or Harnmaster. But it is a better starting point than trying to do the same thing to AD&D 1e.

And to be clear, this is not theory. I had multiple sessions with multiple groups for a number of years, trying out various tweaks and alternatives before I got to the point where I am today.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 10, 2025, 11:03:38 PMIn the vast majority of versions of D&D that I have played or read

And while I may not obscure, I freely admit my work in presenting a more grounded version of D&D is an outlier in the OSR. Most folks think it can't be done so don't bother trying. The few that do try wind up going overboard and wind up morphing into a non-D&D compatible system. Which is fine but something I worked hard to avoid.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 10, 2025, 11:03:38 PMIf you populate the game world with a high percentage of leveled characters, then in the strictest sense, yes you have made your PCs "average", but "average in a world full of extraordinary people" is not what most people would mean when they talk about "average joes PCs".

It depends on what a level means in terms of capability.

If you define 16th levels to be a once-in-a-generation talent and 12th level to be olympic/noble caliber. 9th to be notable in one's profession i.e. grandmaster, 6th capable of professional leadership i.e master, 3rd level to be a fully trained professional i.e. journeyman, and 1st level to be a skilled apprentice starting out. Then, a world of NPCs with classes and levels makes a lot of sense when interacting with them while roleplaying as a character.

But if you don't calibrate levels and do what AD&D 1e does, it will feel superheroic, and your criticism is warranted.

But if you start out with an edition like OD&D, where the difference between an Olympic-caliber 12th-level character and a 1st-level apprentice feels right to begin with, then you have a solid foundation to build on. But to be clear, RAW OD&D is not sufficient because its minimalist mechanics don't cover everything needed to make a fantasy campaign feel more grounded, like skills, the possibility of a one-shot kill, or grievous wounds.

Rob Conley
Bat in the Attic Games.

Quote from: estar on March 11, 2025, 01:10:12 AMWhat is constant, a center so to speak, is the fact there is a group of hobbyists who promote, play, and publish for the classic editions of D&D, specifically OD&D, OD&D plus supplements, Holmes D&D, B/X D&D, BECMI D&D, AD&D 1e, and AD&D 2e. Some of these are more popular with B/X D&D, AD&D 1e, and OD&D w/ supplement being the three most popular.

I know this is the due I been involved with the community since its inception and also track numbers via the DriveThruRPG OSR categories and other sources.

Beyond the classic edition, the themes and the minimalist nature of some of the early editions like OD&D and B/X D&D have proven popular creating a constellation of related RPGs by various folks some of whom also publish both original systems and material supporting classic editions directly. Systems like DCC RPG, Shadowdark, and Mork Borg are part of this constellation.

estar - all of the games that you're mentioning are more-or-less in the same genre as D&D, though.

The question in this thread is about doing different genres. If a game doesn't have classes or levels, or six attributes, and isn't fantasy genre, then should it really be considered in the OSR?

To be concrete - Socratic-DM suggests that John Harper's World of Dungeons is OSR. Suppose I write up a "World of Apocalypse" that is a simpler variant of Apocalypse World along the same lines. Would that be in the OSR?

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 10, 2025, 07:29:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on March 10, 2025, 07:22:11 PMIn the original post (OP), you defined OSR as being "based on TSR era D&D". Maze Rats has almost no mechanical connection to TSR-era D&D. It has three stats rated +0 to +2, rolls 2d6 for attack, and uses degree of success for damage. If someone were to use those mechanics in another genre, there is almost no connection.

Let's consider that statement, if I meant it as literal as you might imply, any OSR game that isn't a direct retroclone of 0e through AD&D 2e wouldn't count, which isn't a useful definition, merely that TSR era D&D is used as a guiding star, it can radically depart in a  structural or doctrinal way, but not both.

I've played TSR modules in Maze Rats before with little effort for conversion, Maze Rats is structurally radical, but tends to produce the same playstyle as old school D&D. hence why I'd include it or something like World of Dungeons, even though it's a PBTA game.

You say "little effort for conversion" - but can you clarify what the conversion looks like? It seems to me that most of the stats will need to change, like how going from 1d20 to 2d6 means that modifiers are greatly different. Armor class or magic item bonuses will need to be scaled, along with monster damage into mods and others.

I can and have adapted TSR modules to use in a D&D 5E game - and I could do the same for a Savage Worlds game or a FATE game or a Rolemaster game. I just can't use the mechanics / stat numbers as-is, but have to substitute or create something similar in the system.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 10, 2025, 05:17:23 PMTo be frank this is a bit of a trick/weird question, because I don't think there is a specific genre or setting that can't fit into an OSR framework, whether or not it is the best option is a different question altogether.

Also to clarify real quick for the pedants among us: when I mean OSR, I'm talking about games based on TSR era D&D, I don't really care if you think something like Traveller should count because that expands the definition to something which isn't useful in a conversation.

The reason I touch on this is because I've finally managed to articulate in my mind why I like and glommed onto the OSR as a school of game design and it comes down to one word extensibility.

OSR is shitty at being open to non-D&D games which are far better at achieving extensibility then D&D based games.

Case in point, using modern firearms in a game originally designed to use medieval weapons - there still is nothing better than a close approximation unless you completely retool the D&D combat system.

The biggest problems are to me the following.

1: It was a pointless "movement" and there was nothing in need of "reviving" or "rennasauncing" except in the delusions of those who just refuse to pay the fuck attention.

2: It near instantly lost any meaning as people started twisting it completely out of context to suit their own agendas or twisted the meaning to just be another "everything on earth". Hell. Someone a few years ago declasred 5e OSR!

3: Near instantly people started trying to force certain playstyles and mindsets, becoming more oppressive than what they were supposedly fighting. This on top of somethimes completely idiotic interpretations of rules to the point you have to assume some of these morons failed basic reading comprehension. The retarded "1:1 TIME!!!!" attempt at enforcement being a semi recent example of just how bad this gets.

4: and so many many more failings.