True based strongly on D&D style OSR does firearms poorly. I don't mean the occasional flintlock in a fantasy game, but a firearms based combat system.

D&D (every edition - not just the old ones) is a melee focused combat system with spells on top. Which is solid at what it does.

But for a firearms focused system to feel right IMO, you need to do things like slow down movement and make cover matter much more. That, and the HP bloat of D&D (while less in older systems than 3e/4e/5e) feels more wonky with firearms from a vibes perspective.

Quote from: jhkim on March 11, 2025, 01:56:07 AMestar - all of the games that you're mentioning are more-or-less in the same genre as D&D, though.

As for OSR system addressing different genres there is White Star, Stars without Numbers, Cities without Number, and so on.

Quote from: jhkim on March 11, 2025, 01:56:07 AMThe 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?

No. But like the MCC RPG from Goodman Games, the company or author may deliberately cultivates an OSR audience. When this happens the author or company has a track record supporting classic edition mechanics or themes.

I said this numerous but the OSR is comprised of folks who promote, play, and publish for classic editions of D&D and other things that interest them. Goodman Games is one of the best example of a company creating a novel system that deliberately cultivated an OSR audience. Kevin Crawford is another who built a reputation on leveraging classic edition mechanics for different genre then later returns to fantasy (Worlds without Number, Spears at Dawn, Scarlet Heroes).

Quote from: jhkim on March 11, 2025, 01:56:07 AMTo 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?

He is trying to cultivate an OSR audience, so yes.

QuoteWorld of Dungeons is a simple, quick-play, dungeon crawling game, using one of the core mechanics from the Powered by the Apocalypse rules system.

It's compatible with Old School Renaissance and original D&D monsters, dungeons, and adventure modules.

It part of the constellation I mentioned sitting alongside projects like Mork Borg. Which also identifies itself as being part of the OSR.

However while thematically it trying to appeal to the OSR, mechanically it will be its own thing like the DCC RPG, like Mork Borg. Something that will be of interest but if it catches on will develop it own orbit of supplemental material catering to its specific sensibilities and mechanical quirks.

We are 18 years in, there are numerous examples of RPGs like World of Dungeon catering to the OSR and what happens to them over time. It not fuzzy or mysterious. If the author succeeded as they claim

QuoteIt's compatible with Old School Renaissance and original D&D monsters, dungeons, and adventure modules.

and if it is fun to play and of good quality then like Mork Borg (Adamantine Seller) and Black Hack (Mithril Seller) they will enjoy steady stream of folks from the group who started out playing, promoting, and publishing for classic editions take interest in their system and start using it.

However a major strike is using itch.io as their only store front.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on March 11, 2025, 05:20:07 AMTrue based strongly on D&D style OSR does firearms poorly. I don't mean the occasional flintlock in a fantasy game, but a firearms based combat system.

D&D (every edition - not just the old ones) is a melee focused combat system with spells on top. Which is solid at what it does.

But for a firearms focused system to feel right IMO, you need to do things like slow down movement and make cover matter much more. That, and the HP bloat of D&D (while less in older systems than 3e/4e/5e) feels more wonky with firearms from a vibes perspective.

Doesn't seem to be an issue for White Star (Mithral Seller), Stars without Number (adamantine seller), or Cities without Number (mithral seller).

It fine that you have specific preferences in order for a system with gun combat to feel right. As a result you don't like D&D based RPG like Star without number. However that is not true for the thousands enjoy D&D based RPGs with gun combat like White Star, and Stars without Number.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on March 11, 2025, 05:20:07 AMTrue based strongly on D&D style OSR does firearms poorly. I don't mean the occasional flintlock in a fantasy game, but a firearms based combat system.

I disagree. Anomalous Subsurface Environment (ASE) and the Land of a Thousand Towers it's based in, do firearms just fine, with Labyrinth Lord as the game mechanics. I've had zero problems.

It works because damage is scaled in regards to the others weapons. They're not OP.

A small pistol does 1d4 damage, which is equivalent to a dagger.

Large pistol and rifle does 1d6, doing the same damage as a sword or club.

Light plasma rifle does 1d6 plus fire damage. Fire damage being as per burning oil.

As you can see, when it comes to damage of firearms, when done correctly by being scaled to existing weapons, works just fine.

Quote from: estar on March 11, 2025, 09:08:34 AM

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on March 11, 2025, 05:20:07 AMTrue based strongly on D&D style OSR does firearms poorly. I don't mean the occasional flintlock in a fantasy game, but a firearms based combat system.

D&D (every edition - not just the old ones) is a melee focused combat system with spells on top. Which is solid at what it does.

But for a firearms focused system to feel right IMO, you need to do things like slow down movement and make cover matter much more. That, and the HP bloat of D&D (while less in older systems than 3e/4e/5e) feels more wonky with firearms from a vibes perspective.

Doesn't seem to be an issue for White Star (Mithral Seller), Stars without Number (adamantine seller), or Cities without Number (mithral seller).

It fine that you have specific preferences in order for a system with gun combat to feel right. As a result you don't like D&D based RPG like Star without number. However that is not true for the thousands enjoy D&D based RPGs with gun combat like White Star, and Stars without Number.

So my question is for those that prefer those games, given the nature of the OSR to be extremely negative towards non-D&D but still old games, have they bothered to try any other options besides the OSR D&D offerings out there?

I'm done with arguments about defining the OSR. As far as I can tell, it's an endless, pointless debate and a waste of time.

Quote from: estar on March 11, 2025, 01:10:12 AMWhile 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.

Yeah I'm not trying to belittle you or your game. There's lots of games I haven't read, including some very famous ones. Thanks for posting the free version, though. I'm always interested in seeing how things might be done differently. 

Incidentally, I have played through your Blackmarsh sandbox. It's good. My group had a lot of fun with it.

Quote from: estar on March 11, 2025, 01:10:12 AM

QuoteWhat 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.

That's probably where we're getting caught up, right there. When I say an "average joe" I mean not a career adventurer: I mean a regular person with a normal occupation who for whatever reason gets caught up in an adventure.

In general, I think the description you gave there is how D&D PCs should be construed, but there are a number of  games that do try to do the latter. It's pretty common in horror games, for example.

OSR doesn't do a good job of keeping low level threats relevant.  A Goblin Slayer campaign would get kind of silly after a few  level-ups.

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 11, 2025, 09:29:42 AM[So my question is for those that prefer those games, given the nature of the OSR to be extremely negative towards non-D&D but still old games, have they bothered to try any other options besides the OSR D&D offerings out there?

While I enjoy D&D or D&D clones of any edition (save 4th, I didn't like it) my favorite game system is Traveller and clones.  I just finished up a mini campaign on the ship here and it went wonderfully.

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 11, 2025, 09:29:42 AMSo my question is for those that prefer those games, given the nature of the OSR to be extremely negative towards non-D&D but still old games, have they bothered to try any other options besides the OSR D&D offerings out there?

It not the nature of the OSR to be either positive or negative to other older games. The answer is it always depends who you are talking about?

For example the group behind supporting OSRIC hang out at Knights and Knaves and within their forum are the following sub forums.

Chaosium Games
Hyperborea
Traveller

The OD&D discussion forum has Tunnels & Trolls and Runequest.

In contrast Dragonsfoot has a single other games category.

As for your question about folks trying other system. The answer is that the vast majority of OSR hobbyists have tried other systems.

1) The OSR is mostly a product of the internet allowing folks to easily get together to discuss, share, and game. Unlike the hobby centered around game stores and home campaigns this group as a rule is exposed to far more of the RPG hobby.

2) The OSR as part of the industry is probably equal to two or three mid-tier publishers. As a result like for most mid-tier publishing niches the bulk of new hobbyists are from outside of the OSR hobby having started with something else. And the fact that the OSR is largely found on the internet means these folks including D&D 5e hobbyist are aware of and tried alternatives.

Quote from: BadApple on March 11, 2025, 10:18:20 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 11, 2025, 09:29:42 AM[So my question is for those that prefer those games, given the nature of the OSR to be extremely negative towards non-D&D but still old games, have they bothered to try any other options besides the OSR D&D offerings out there?

While I enjoy D&D or D&D clones of any edition (save 4th, I didn't like it) my favorite game system is Traveller and clones.  I just finished up a mini campaign on the ship here and it went wonderfully.

Quote from: estar on March 11, 2025, 10:55:46 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 11, 2025, 09:29:42 AMSo my question is for those that prefer those games, given the nature of the OSR to be extremely negative towards non-D&D but still old games, have they bothered to try any other options besides the OSR D&D offerings out there?

It not the nature of the OSR to be either positive or negative to other older games. The answer is it always depends who you are talking about?

For example the group behind supporting OSRIC hang out at Knights and Knaves and within their forum are the following sub forums.

Chaosium Games
Hyperborea
Traveller

The OD&D discussion forum has Tunnels & Trolls and Runequest.

In contrast Dragonsfoot has a single other games category.

As for your question about folks trying other system. The answer is that the vast majority of OSR hobbyists have tried other systems.

1) The OSR is mostly a product of the internet allowing folks to easily get together to discuss, share, and game. Unlike the hobby centered around game stores and home campaigns this group as a rule is exposed to far more of the RPG hobby.

2) The OSR as part of the industry is probably equal to two or three mid-tier publishers. As a result like for most mid-tier publishing niches the bulk of new hobbyists are from outside of the OSR hobby having started with something else. And the fact that the OSR is largely found on the internet means these folks including D&D 5e hobbyist are aware of and tried alternatives.

Estar, when I have talked to others about the OSR and returning to its roots when the term would encompass all old school games, I have been told that OSR is defined by D&D style of rules and none other. I find this to be a myopic outlook which ignores a tremendous amount of innovation that came out of the games past. Even Pundit has unequivocally said that OSR means D&D based only.

Knights & Knaves Alehouse may have sections for other games and Dragonsfoot has an other category, but more often than not the modern OSR has become a walled garden. IMHO, a walled garden that is growing in on itself and choking the life out of its possibilities.

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 11, 2025, 09:29:42 AMSo my question is for those that prefer those games, given the nature of the OSR to be extremely negative towards non-D&D but still old games, have they bothered to try any other options besides the OSR D&D offerings out there?

This is what I wonder. I find this common with most "D&D" players writ-large. Trying to convince them to go outside of D&D - whether it's 5e or OSR-based, at best is like speaking pidgen with some interpretive dance and sock-puppetry, to generate any kind of enthusiasm.

There is a serious argument to be made about familiarity breeding comfort. It is a hassle to learn a new system, I get it. But I also feel that's the onus of the GM to not let the system get in the way in order to produce a smooth gaming experience.

I find that in the tried-and-true fashion of D&D, (big generalization incoming) that most people engage with the system *as* the game itself. Definitely less so for the OSR than for later-editions of D&D, but it's there.

What I don't think OSR (or D&D) is mechanically good at: Scalability. It does low-to-mid power level gameplay very well. Once you start getting into "super-powered" characters, it falls apart. I think the sacred cows of d20 (AC, HP, Classes-progression) and the nuances of those things which are vestigial from their war-gaming roots, are clunky but are clinged to for no particular reason.

Nothing is a deal-breaker of course. In the hands of a good GM nearly any system will work. I've long considered writing up my own OSR fantasy heartbreaker (and I have the skeleton of it). Primary differences -

Attributes: Use the standard OSR six (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma), rolled as 3d6 each. Constitution determines Toughness (see below).

Toughness: Base Toughness = Constitution score ÷ 2 (rounded down) + 2. For example:
Con 10 → Toughness 7 (5 + 2)
Con 16 → Toughness 9 (8 + 2)
Con 6 → Toughness 5 (3 + 2)

Wounds: All characters start with a maximum of 2 Wounds, reflecting OSR lethality. (Higher-level characters or specific classes might gain a third via advancement or abilities.)

Armor: Adds directly to Toughness:
No armor: +0
Leather: +1
Chain: +2
Plate: +3

Example: A fighter with Con 14 (Toughness 9) in chain (+2) has Toughness 11.

Dice Explode.

This future proofs scaling for class and magic-items... etc. I have a lot more. But then I realized, most OSR folks probably wouldn't care because it deviates too far from what they're used to, at which point, unless I'm going to sell a setting with this system, the energy required to convince my players to try it, would be better served pitching other systems we regularly play. i.e. until I'm 100% convinced the system is air-tight, I don't want to waste our time.

I'm considering running ACKS in the near future, so my feelings may change on finishing this...

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 11, 2025, 10:01:58 AMYeah I'm not trying to belittle you or your game. There's lots of games I haven't read, including some very famous ones. Thanks for posting the free version, though. I'm always interested in seeing how things might be done differently.

I didn't take your comments as particular critical. Even if they were I am well aware we are talking about game design, and more important when it comes to creative choices preference is king.

For this thread, folks, like you, were making comments on what D&D can do well or not well. And on certain points, like yours, I have some experience that is relevant. Doesn't mean that anybody should like D&D better. It just mean that yes if you design a D&D compatible system in X,Y, and Z it can do the thing well that people say it can't.

And it not a D&D thing either many system with the right tweaks, often minimal, are often more flexible than what the hobby gives them credit for. Most RPGs are about human or human-like beings having adventures and because of that there is a foundation that can be used to tweak systems to support very different settings then the authors intended for it to support.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 11, 2025, 10:01:58 AMIncidentally, I have played through your Blackmarsh sandbox. It's good. My group had a lot of fun with it.

Thanks and I am glad you had fun with it. My next project will the Northern Marches which expands Blackmarsh out into four 12" by 18" maps. Combines a few of my older projects that are related with new material.

https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2025/03/wandering-through-majestic-fantasy.html

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 11, 2025, 10:01:58 AMThat's probably where we're getting caught up, right there. When I say an "average joe" I mean not a career adventurer: I mean a regular person with a normal occupation who for whatever reason gets caught up in an adventure.

Thanks for the clarification and ironically that what I took it to mean. One of the points of my Majestic Fantasy RPG is run campaigns with a D&D compatible system that plays out similar to my GURPS campaigns.  And that includes the fact the "average joe" as you defined the is the baseline GURPS character.

For my MW RPG, 3rd level characters are the average joes of the campaign. Third level is a character who is considered a professional at their occupation whether it is farming, crafting, burglar, spellcasting or fighting.

I will bring this up because it comes when talking the design of D&D, hit points. So what the deal with hit points? Well for me based all the research and reading I did about the origins of D&D. Hit points at most is just a measure of combat endurance.

It obviously related to being injury because being injured will bring about the end of combat for that character that much quicker. However unlike GURPS, Runequest, and other system that use hit point, it not directly tied to injury. It is silent on how the character's combat endurance is being reduced.

So the question with hit points and the average joe with D&D is really about how long can the average joe last in a fight. Fighters would have a lot of combat endurance. In GURPS and Runequest this is wrapped up in the interplay of skill levels, attributes, equipment, and abilities. D&D is much more minimalist.

So life experience has some impact as well as attributes in a D&D system even for a average joe (like GURPS). For my MW RPG I have what I call NPC classes like Scholars, Craftsmen, that never improve their combat skill and only have 1 hit point plus their con bonus regardless of levels.

Then I have classes that could be adventurers but are better at stuff outside of combat and spellcasting. Some like the thug are better combatant thus get 1d6 +con bonus per level. Some like the burglar with minimal combat skill and thus get 1d4+con bonus per level. The same with magic-user and other spellcaster who also have minimal combat skill. Also for reference fighters get 1d6+2+con bonus per level. Also attribute bonus top out at +3 at 18 not +4 in d20 based variants.

While it helps lower hit points isn't sufficent to make things more grounded. The other element is allowing combat stunts. Stunts allow for things like knock out blows on a successful to hit roll but the catch is that the target gets a save. Why? because for D&D saves is how character avoid "bad things' happening to them.  GURPS and other system handle "bad things" in different way but through playtesting I cooked the numbers to I get a more grounded rather than fantastic outcome.

Then finally there is a skill system because if you are going have average joes, as you define it, as part of a campaign then to keep thing interesting you need some focus on things outside of combat and spellcasting and just a important some method of being better at these things as a character gains experience in life. Just like Runequest, just like Savage Worlds, and GURPS.

I hope that clarifies I where I am coming from. RAW you are right classic D&D is more on the heroic side of things. But with the right tweaks that still keep the result firmly in the D&D camp and thus stuff like Keep on the Borderlands still useful for a campaign then a campaign that feels more grounded can happen.

Quote from: Charon's Little Helper on March 11, 2025, 05:20:07 AMTrue based strongly on D&D style OSR does firearms poorly. I don't mean the occasional flintlock in a fantasy game, but a firearms based combat system.

D&D (every edition - not just the old ones) is a melee focused combat system with spells on top. Which is solid at what it does.

But for a firearms focused system to feel right IMO, you need to do things like slow down movement and make cover matter much more. That, and the HP bloat of D&D (while less in older systems than 3e/4e/5e) feels more wonky with firearms from a vibes perspective.

I strongly disagree on this specific point, I think most firearm rules devised around D&D like systems are rather piss poor, I pin that fault on the designers and less the framework.

Speaking for myself I've been running a modern day setting OSR system of my own making which uses quite good firearm rules, which you can find here if you're interested.

My group has found them quite good, and I have had other people reach out and say they use these now over the default in whatever system they are using.

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 11, 2025, 03:38:40 AMOSR 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.

Strongly disagree with this point, I just replied to someone else on why this is not the case, I've been running my own modern day OSR system, with players running around using full plate-carriers and rifles and it's been quite smooth.

Quote from: tenbones on March 11, 2025, 11:30:48 AMNothing is a deal-breaker of course. In the hands of a good GM nearly any system will work. I've long considered writing up my own OSR fantasy heartbreaker (and I have the skeleton of it).

I read that and immediately asked, "Why would I ever use that when I could just run Savage Worlds?" I am not shitting on your skeleton, I happen to like those rules, and that's sort of the point.

In that, I think we can see why so many fantasy heartbreakers fail.

Everybody on the outside looks at the OSR as somebody's house-ruled version of TSR-era D&D. Maybe it's B/X, maybe it's 1E, maybe it's 2E, but none of that matters to the outsider. It's just pre-2000 D&D with some random guy's house rules. Pretty much everything you're going to do to expand or innovate has already been done in some other game.

I'm not unwilling to play this game, but I'm not going to buy it. If I played with you and you wanted to run it, I'd play it. However, you'd have to put up with me asking you why you aren't just running Savage Worlds instead. Your answer to me would probably be some flavor of, "I want to, but Bob won't play anything but D&D." I'll admit, it's a clever way to trick Bob into playing Savage Worlds by hiding it in D&D, but you don't have to do that for anybody but Bob.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 11, 2025, 10:01:58 AMThat's probably where we're getting caught up, right there. When I say an "average joe" I mean not a career adventurer: I mean a regular person with a normal occupation who for whatever reason gets caught up in an adventure.

In general, I think the description you gave there is how D&D PCs should be construed, but there are a number of  games that do try to do the latter. It's pretty common in horror games, for example.

In the center of OSR, I think a version of horror is one of the few things that it does well at low-level.  It's just that instead of eldritch horror going on forever, it is Fantasy Vietnam horror with your almost nameless scrub getting replaced with another one in short order.  

That's back to the point by tenbones, scaling.  I don't think the base chassis scales particularly well at the upper or lower ends.  What it does do well is stretch out the middle parts of the scale to create the feeling of relative power changing over time.