TheRPGSite

To 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.

Coming from a Linux perspective extensibility is a term used to describe how expandable a system or program is without needing to retool the whole thing from the ground up, and in this respect while I wouldn't call all OSR systems "rules light" as that is somewhat subjective, the thing I've found in common is they are quite extensible, I can add or remove mechanics and the whole system doesn't come apart.

this is often mistaken with compatibility, but really a lot of OSR games have mutually exclusive mechanics, but by the systems extensible nature it's easy to pick one mechanic or the other and have the rest of the operation go smoothly.

Why am I bringing all of this up? to point out the unspoken core strength of the OSR to frame the question, because I have yet to find a genre which I don't think the OSR can do, I can name genres it's weaker in, Superheroes are an example, I've run Light City and while it was fun it certainly didn't capture the genre as well as something like Mutants & Masterminds. But at the same time something like a Daredevil or Punisher style game would work well in an OSR framework, or hell even something like The Shadow.

so even in the genre I think it's weak in, it has strengths in some of the specific sub-genres.

Selling.

Jokes aside, the main issue I have with OSR is that there are so many of them.  The other name that they used to have was D&D heartbreaker. 

You would poor your soul into writing a D&D killer, only for nobody to pay any attention to it. 

Hence the selling joke.

Really, OSR has two types. 

1.  Actual OSR.  These are the old D&D as they used to be, but written legibly.

2.  OSR, but with house rules, typically cribbed from other sources to make the D&D you like.  Ascending AC, weapon traits, roll-to-cast instead of Vancian magic, etc.  These tend to be the ones I just called Heartbreakers.

I like most OSR games.  The really good ones also tend to be free as well.  Basic Fantasy, Bugbears & Borderlands, Olde Swords Reign, and more. 

I think WoTC's mistakes the past few years have been the biggest boon to OSR gaming that we might actually see people play them. 

But, as I said, the OSR's biggest issue is adoption by the player base.  There are so many that you can get Choice Overload.  Even with free games.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on March 10, 2025, 05:23:41 PMSelling.

Seinfeld Laugh track engaged (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J83lw0eFIJA)

Quote from: weirdguy564 on March 10, 2025, 05:35:36 PMJokes aside, the main issue I have with OSR is that there are so many of them.  The other name that they used to have was D&D heartbreaker. 

You would poor your soul into writing a D&D killer, only for nobody to pay any attention to it. 

Hence the selling joke.

Really, OSR has two types. 

1.  Actual OSR.  These are the old D&D as they used to be, but written legibly.

2.  OSR, but with house rules, typically cribbed from other sources to make the D&D you like.  Ascending AC, weapon traits, roll-to-cast instead of Vancian magic, etc.  These tend to be the ones I just called Heartbreakers.

I like most OSR games.  The really good ones also tend to be free as well.  Basic Fantasy, Bugbears & Borderlands, Olde Swords Reign, and more. 

I think WoTC's mistakes the past few years have been the biggest boon to OSR gaming that we might actually see people play them. 

But, as I said, the OSR's biggest issue is adoption by the player base.

It's funny you mention heartbreakers, because while I think Basic Fantasy and it's ilk of retroclones are awesome, the ones I've really enjoyed GMing or playing have been stuff like Other Dust, Atomic Punk, Wretched New Flesh, Invisible College, and others which aren't fantasy but still are a OSR framework.

I've played and seen a lot of OSR games that aren't attempting to be D&D, or aren't attempting to be D&D but different.

That's a tough question for me because the bound of what is OSR seem so fuzzy.  Does an OSR game have to have classes?  Does it have to have hit point?  Both of those rules out certain ranges of play.

Allow me to speak as a pointedly NOT OSR indie designer.

OSR is good at marketing to its own community. If you are making an OSR game you can probably find your market pretty easily, so it is relatively easy to make OSR products which at least sell some copies and not impossible to make OSR content which sells really well. That is markedly less true of the broader RPG market, where marketing becomes difficult to impossible without a gigantic web presence. If I had to describe the OSR marketing experience I have seen with a metaphor, it's like fishing with a tidal pool. You don't have to have a boat or even a fishing rod; you just wait for the tide to go out and then grab a trapped fish with your bare hands. It's shocking how simple and reliable a technique this is.

That 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.

If I had to describe OSR in brief, it's that it's something of RPG junk food. Sure, really good chefs can crush Cheetos and cover a steak in them, but by and large most people are into OSR for comfort food rather than personal growth, and a lot of the negative attitudes you see in the OSR remind me of children complaining when their parents tell them to eat their peas.

How well is going to be in the eye of the beholder, since different people value different aspects of a system.  For me, it's pretty simple:  The more the game lends itself to skills over classes, the less well an OSR framework will work, and vice versa. 

An example is a 3 Musketeers style game.  There's no magic.  There's hardly any variation in the skill sets of the protagonists/antagonists/minions--only degrees and preferences for styles and certain weapons or even techniques.  If you squint and hold your tongue just right, you might be able to have classes for musketeer, soldier, thief, minor noble, churchman--that sort of thing.  You'd need to get pretty clever with the abilities, and then it still is going to be an odd duck.  Play fast and loose with descriptions, I'm sure some GMs and players have run it and made it work well enough.  But I think if a skills-based game wasn't an option for me, I'd use something even more minimal instead of a class system.  If I need to make it up as I go with a few attributes and flavor, then do that.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 10, 2025, 06:47:11 PMHow well is going to be in the eye of the beholder, since different people value different aspects of a system.  For me, it's pretty simple:  The more the game lends itself to skills over classes, the less well an OSR framework will work, and vice versa. 

An example is a 3 Musketeers style game.  There's no magic.  There's hardly any variation in the skill sets of the protagonists/antagonists/minions--only degrees and preferences for styles and certain weapons or even techniques.  If you squint and hold your tongue just right, you might be able to have classes for musketeer, soldier, thief, minor noble, churchman--that sort of thing.  You'd need to get pretty clever with the abilities, and then it still is going to be an odd duck.  Play fast and loose with descriptions, I'm sure some GMs and players have run it and made it work well enough.  But I think if a skills-based game wasn't an option for me, I'd use something even more minimal instead of a class system.  If I need to make it up as I go with a few attributes and flavor, then do that.

My only comment to this is I think you are conflating OSR with class systems, which is often though not always the case, Maze Rats and Knave even come to mind, even though I consider them structural radicals, something like Invisible College is also classless and fairly structural orthodox.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 10, 2025, 06:52:06 PMMy only comment to this is I think you are conflating OSR with class systems, which is often though not always the case, Maze Rats and Knave even come to mind, even though I consider them structural radicals, something like Invisible College is also classless and fairly structural orthodox.

True. RQ2 is OSR, for example. OSR is not TSR only, THAT is where many people derail. An older style of play is OSR.

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.

This is my sole comment I've going to give you for this thread, as I'm going to out of sight, out of mind any replies you give.

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.

QuoteIf I had to describe OSR in brief, it's that it's something of RPG junk food. Sure, really good chefs can crush Cheetos and cover a steak in them, but by and large most people are into OSR for comfort food rather than personal growth, and a lot of the negative attitudes you see in the OSR remind me of children complaining when their parents tell them to eat their peas.

You really have a talent for saying some of the most pretentious gobbledegook non-substantive assertions, and wrapping them in  allegory and semantic shrouds and hoping a layman just rolls over and takes it.
Your sophistry skills are dull dross!

Anyone having played or seen any of Kevin Crawford's, Questing Beast's or Pundit's work disproves most of your statements as outright fictitious...

Quote from: bat on March 10, 2025, 06:56:08 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 10, 2025, 06:52:06 PMMy only comment to this is I think you are conflating OSR with class systems, which is often though not always the case, Maze Rats and Knave even come to mind, even though I consider them structural radicals, something like Invisible College is also classless and fairly structural orthodox.

True. RQ2 is OSR, for example. OSR is not TSR only, THAT is where many people derail. An older style of play is OSR.

Perhaps I should have clarified, it doesn't have to always be literal TSR era D&D, only that it's the guiding star so to speak.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 10, 2025, 05:17:23 PMWhy am I bringing all of this up? to point out the unspoken core strength of the OSR to frame the question, because I have yet to find a genre which I don't think the OSR can do, I can name genres it's weaker in, Superheroes are an example, I've run Light City and while it was fun it certainly didn't capture the genre as well as something like Mutants & Masterminds. But at the same time something like a Daredevil or Punisher style game would work well in an OSR framework, or hell even something like The Shadow.

so even in the genre I think it's weak in, it has strengths in some of the specific sub-genres.

I don't disagree, but this has been done in practice for lots of RPG system, not just the OSR. Someone makes a base game, and then people adapt that game to a wide variety of genres.

It's been the standard approach of RPG companies to take their base system and adapt it to different genres. Chaosium started out with RuneQuest, and then used that same base system for Call of Cthulhu, SuperWorld, Stormbringer, Ringworld, and plenty of others. White Wolf's storyteller system was used for many World of Darkness games - but also for the Street Fighter RPG, pulp (Adventure!), superheroes (Aberrant), and so forth. Hero Games' superhero RPG Champions was adapted first into different genre games like Justice, Inc. and Danger International before officially being made into a universal RPG. ICE's Rolemaster lead to Space Master and so forth.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 10, 2025, 06:52:06 PMMy only comment to this is I think you are conflating OSR with class systems, which is often though not always the case, Maze Rats and Knave even come to mind, even though I consider them structural radicals, something like Invisible College is also classless and fairly structural orthodox.

In 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.

Quote from: jhkim on March 10, 2025, 07:22:11 PMI don't disagree, but this has been done in practice for lots of RPG system, not just the OSR. Someone makes a base game, and then people adapt that game to a wide variety of genres.

It's been the standard approach of RPG companies to take their base system and adapt it to different genres. Chaosium started out with RuneQuest, and then used that same base system for Call of Cthulhu, SuperWorld, Stormbringer, Ringworld, and plenty of others. White Wolf's storyteller system was used for many World of Darkness games - but also for the Street Fighter RPG, pulp (Adventure!), superheroes (Aberrant), and so forth. Hero Games' superhero RPG Champions was adapted first into different genre games like Justice, Inc. and Danger International before officially being made into a universal RPG. ICE's Rolemaster lead to Space Master and so forth.

No disagreement there, I'm not saying it's an exclusive strength of the OSR, simply that it is one of it's better traits, something like Westends d6 system likewise has good extensibility, and you can see that in how many game used that system to good effect. or any of the aforementioned games you brought up.

QuoteIn 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.

EDIT: Also it's not hard to take Maze Rat's 2d6 combat system and make it work with traditional D&D, chainmail did and was the first combat system, and there is a great streamlined version of that combat system called Chaos Reigns which is a streamlined drop-in-replace version of some of the chainmail combat stuff. free on itch.io

Any game can "do" any setting/genre, contingent on two things: 1) how much modification you're willing to accept while still calling it the same game, and 2) how much you actually care if your rules and setting compliment each other. A surprising number of people just play every setting/genre with D&D rules because it's what they know, and "eh who cares what dice you roll? It's all about roleplaying anyway!"

So I appreciate you phrasing it as "not good at", which is a more honest framing than "can't do".

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

Really, this is just a further explication of the example Steven Mitchell gave above. The 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. D&D and its derivatives actually play much better under the assumption that PCs (and classed NPCs) are special heroes with rare gifts.

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.

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.

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 (https://socraticdungeon.com/posts/firearms-rules-complete/) 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. 

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 11, 2025, 11:21:18 AMEstar, 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.

You display a profound lack of understanding of what a walled garden is in the industry and hobby. Of how the OSR works and the diversity of works that people like myself choose to release under its label. This is not unlike the Pundit's own misconceptions and criticisms back in the early 2010s. So I give you the same challenge to you as I did him.

Make a project and release it. If needed, use the available open content. Use DriveThruRPG or itch.io as your storefront. Show the rest of us poor benighted fools in the OSR how things ought to be done. Use those neglected ideas to their fullest in a work that takes advantage of those concepts.

If you need help or advice as to the logistics, then ask. While in the middle of my own project I always have time for questions.

Because the OSR is about as far away as one can get in this industry. In nearly all but a handful of other niches, it is a world of IP restrictions and strict creative supervision.

Because OSR today is shaped by those who do and has been since it founding in the mid 2000s. Shaped by those who play, those who promote, and those who publish.

https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/08/those-who-do-and-old-school-renaissance.html

There's a couple of types of play that I haven't seen done well in an OSR game.  The key word here is "well;" I've seen games have done a bit with these, but in a very cursory manner.  I'll admit up front that my experience with OSR is very limited, so I'd be interested in hearing about any counterexample.
    Survival play like journey through Mirkwood or Oregon Trail
    Movement challenges like those found in the Tomb Raider and Uncharted video games
    Stealth, as done in video games like Tenchu

Quote from: Corolinth on March 11, 2025, 12:58:45 PM

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.

This 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?

For example, let's say I make an OSR game doing Lovecraftian horror. How will it be different from Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu?

Or if I make an OSR game for 1980s super-spies. How will it be different from the James Bond 007 RPG?

Why would I play the OSR game as opposed to the non-OSR game?

Quote from: estar on March 11, 2025, 01:45:13 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 11, 2025, 11:21:18 AMEstar, 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.

You display a profound lack of understanding of what a walled garden is in the industry and hobby. Of how the OSR works and the diversity of works that people like myself choose to release under its label. This is not unlike the Pundit's own misconceptions and criticisms back in the early 2010s.

OK, I'd appreciate it if you told me where my understanding fails on this subject.

Quote from: estar on March 11, 2025, 01:45:13 PMSo I give you the same challenge to you as I did him.

Make a project and release it. If needed, use the available open content. Use DriveThruRPG or itch.io as your storefront. Show the rest of us poor benighted fools in the OSR how things ought to be done. Use those neglected ideas to their fullest in a work that takes advantage of those concepts.

If you need help or advice as to the logistics, then ask. While in the middle of my own project I always have time for questions.

Because the OSR is about as far away as one can get in this industry. In nearly all but a handful of other niches, it is a world of IP restrictions and strict creative supervision.

Because OSR today is shaped by those who do and has been since it founding in the mid 2000s. Shaped by those who play, those who promote, and those who publish.

https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/08/those-who-do-and-old-school-renaissance.html

All right. Challenge accepted.

Logically, I'll start small and build up because I don't have the kind of finances needed to pay for art and other production costs. This may take a few years, but I'm in.

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.

Firearms are the symptom of the deficiency, not the disease itself (it's noticing the headache, but missing the brain tumor).  The question is why OSR firearms rules feel off to so many people (including me, by the way)?  I would posit is primarily because firearms have so many additional factors describing their operation, and they fire so much faster.  And that's the key!

What OSR (and by extension, early D&D) does well is simulate results, not simulate actual events.  The origins of this genre are derived from wargaming.  Wargaming was not designed to simulate every swing or blow of a sword, every step or feint, every nick or scrape.  The rules were intended to simulate the outcome of all of those events.  It's the reason AD&D had one minute rounds; it had no desire to track the actual moment-by-moment actions in combat.  Instead, it focused on the general outcome of that one minute fighting.  Has your opponent been weakened, either by blows or fatigue?  If yes, then their HP is lessened (which is the only reason that HP works as a mechanic, because it abstracts wounds, fatigue, tactical position, etc.).  This is why, at least originally, I don't know anyone who thought of their to-hit roll as an actual swing of the sword.  It was the effect of cumulative swings, parries, and misses.  The loss of hit points is abstracting the actual events of a round in order to simulate the effect of the round on the combatants.  The combat "feels" right, because the outcome of the round (and the fight) feel right, not because the mechanics describe every swing and miss.

Compare this with something like GURPs and its 1 second turns. GURPS is trying to simulate the events occurring within the turn, model each swing or each step.  The game hopes that by simulating each act, it will also simulate the overall effect of the combat (it's up for debate as to whether this holds true...).

This has always been my argument against adding things like hit location, called shots, grappling or disarming rules, etc.  All of those are already expressed through the final effect of the round ("Did I lose HP?").  Attempting to simulate those specific acts is discordant with the abstracted nature of the combat round.  It is also the reason for more modern versions of D&D (3e+) having somewhat disjointed mechanics, as feats and maneuvers are slipping into direct simulation.

The only d20 firearm rules I've seen that I haven't been totally offput by are rules that maintain the high level of abstraction when it comes to the firing of the weapons and just focus on the effects.  The more that the rules delve into burst fire, cover, moving and firing, etc., the more they move D&D, and the OSR games, away from what they do well towards their only deficiency, which is modelling the events in combat.  OSR should stick to modelling the results.

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 11, 2025, 11:21:18 AMEven Pundit has unequivocally said that OSR means D&D based only.

He's wrong then, it is possible. I don't recall him in on the TARGA calls or even being part of TARGA which is where the OSR began.

Quote from: bat on March 11, 2025, 03:58:19 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 11, 2025, 11:21:18 AMEven Pundit has unequivocally said that OSR means D&D based only.

He's wrong then, it is possible. I don't recall him in on the TARGA calls or even being part of TARGA which is where the OSR began.

The OSR existed prior to Targa speaking as someone who was involved with Targa

Quote from: estar on March 11, 2025, 01:45:13 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 11, 2025, 11:21:18 AMEstar, 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.

You display a profound lack of understanding of what a walled garden is in the industry and hobby. Of how the OSR works and the diversity of works that people like myself choose to release under its label. This is not unlike the Pundit's own misconceptions and criticisms back in the early 2010s. So I give you the same challenge to you as I did him.

Make a project and release it. If needed, use the available open content. Use DriveThruRPG or itch.io as your storefront. Show the rest of us poor benighted fools in the OSR how things ought to be done. Use those neglected ideas to their fullest in a work that takes advantage of those concepts.

If you need help or advice as to the logistics, then ask. While in the middle of my own project I always have time for questions.

Because the OSR is about as far away as one can get in this industry. In nearly all but a handful of other niches, it is a world of IP restrictions and strict creative supervision.

Because OSR today is shaped by those who do and has been since it founding in the mid 2000s. Shaped by those who play, those who promote, and those who publish.

https://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/08/those-who-do-and-old-school-renaissance.html

I'm going to point out that this is drifting from the actual intent of the thread. Respectfully Rob, you're talking, imo, more about Marketing than what I think this thread is actually about. There is something to be said about the connection between the market success of a product and its assumed quality - but we both know that's not the reality of reality.


To your point about popularity, without accusing you ad populum claims - I'm *agreeing* with you on the basis of longevity of the OSR. There are, however, many OSR products that aren't widely accepted by the larger gaming populace even within the walled garden. Perhaps you could speak to this better than I could. My perception *seems* to be that all OSR products, (to the point where I accept what you define as OSR) are 90% compatible with one another, yet the OSR products that are clearly making large sums of money, isn't translating to the rest of the OSR community. Or am I wrong? I'm not crapping on anyone or their product, I'm just asking as a relative outsider - to use an obvious example, Pundits products are *qualitatively* good by my standards of the OSR, as are yours. But you guys are doing well. But are the people that glommed onto Shadowdark and ACKS and DCC (OSR/not OSR) also eating up your guy's products too?

I don't feel that's true (which is a shame).

MY contention with the OSR, and what I thought this thread was *actually* about is talking about mechanics. I honestly do feel the OSR products have "something" that their consumers hang onto. I profess to not understand why, other than nostalgia, what that is.

If I produced an "OSR inspired" product - using all the d20 dice, and all my old Basic D&D assumptions outside of the mechanical oddities I feel are clunky - which to be clear, exist in other games, I suspect without *any* marketing material, most OSR people would write it off as a Fantasy Heartbreaker and ignore it.

I *feel* this is true about a lot of older systems. Even if you can claim that the style of fantasy being represented is "D&D" style: with Fighters, Clerics, Thieves etc. the majority of OSR players eat from their respective bowls, don't look up, unless there is some marketing push among those in the Walled Garden (and even then I'm skeptical that really happens).

TL/DR - Are you saying OSR is only for those that consume OSR and those outside the "Walled Garden" who want something more than "tradtional" OSR (whatever that is defined by those in the Walled Garden) aren't welcome? And this might just be the phenomenon of those consumers, not some overt intention.

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

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.

I want to emphasize that the system theoretically supporting the GM doing something is not the same as having a game designed to do that thing, which is not the same as a game designed to do that specific thing meeting commercial success. Your game's example is arguably a modest success, but it isn't really designed to do your example.

I am not arguing that OSR can't be used to run a basketry game because a lot of RPGs can actually do that. There's a fair chance that a determined and knowledgeable GM could get most RPGs to do that, so you've actually proven more about what determined GMs can do and not what is actually uniquely true of the OSR space. If I can do this same thing in a pointedly not-OSR game like Genesys or World of Darkness, then what are you actually demonstrating?

QuoteWell 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.

I think this is probably more on point than you realize. I imagine the way to make successful RPGs may be to build pillars on top of the D&D pillars, meaning that they basically contain the D&D design pillar, but it's also taking it in new directions. Call of C'thulu does this because the Exploration pillar has become Investigation, and in many ways Investigation could include almost all of Exploration, but it also carries a personality change because you aren't randomly poking around; you're looking for specific bits of information.

QuoteWrapping 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.

Wait a sec. How is OD&D not already Swords & Wizardry that you had to adapt it? I can see an argument that it wouldn't match specific subsets of the Swords & Wizardry genre, but on the whole I don't see anything needed to be "adapted." Can you explain this a bit?

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 can see that, but I also think that most RPGs in general struggle to handle firearms because of the turn structure. You can abstract at least a Hollywood sense of parry and riposte in sword combat to a few general turns decently well, but firearms put a whole lot of damage downrange really quickly and tend to resist being too abstract. On the contrary, the most successful firearms games appear to try to use the dice to literally translate tangible elements as closely as possible. Twilight 2K has ammunition dice, for example, which physically represent ammunition you are throwing downrange at the table.

And in my own game, things like manual lever or bolt action guns literally require you to spend an action point to work the action of the gun at some point during the round. These weapons are in many ways objectively worse than semiautomatics, but they tend to be popular with playtesters because they are high flavor. It feels right.

I would argue that this abrupt change from abstract to tangible means that you mostly have to pick and choose between D&D style sword combat and having modern firearms with any flavor, and you will likely also need specialist dice or action economy features designed just to support the firearms.

I think this is a fair example of something OSR probably won't ever do well. Firearms by their nature enjoy being tangible and precise, which leads designers towards Rube Goldberg contraption-like rules when implementing them, which will in turn tighten system control and rely less on GM intuition and freedom, making the game feel less OSR-y.

With firearms, I'm not sure all the influence runs from mechanics into genre.  There are apparently a sizable chunk of people like me that for whatever reason simply don't like having firearms--even primitive muskets--in their fantasy.  So I'm not going to explore house rules to make it work (except in a few niche cases where I go against inclinations to cater to a group), and I'm not going to be attracted to rules that solve what for me is a non-existent problem. 

You might say there is a certain amount of self selection bias going on in what rules end up supporting.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 11, 2025, 03:41:05 PMI would posit is primarily because firearms have so many additional factors describing their operation, and they fire so much faster.  And that's the key!

What OSR (and by extension, early D&D) does well is simulate results, not simulate actual events.  The origins of this genre are derived from wargaming.  Wargaming was not designed to simulate every swing or blow of a sword, every step or feint, every nick or scrape.  The rules were intended to simulate the outcome of all of those events.

While true to some degree, I've also played wargames which do firearms much better than D20/OSR.

IMO - a key aspect of firearms feeling right (especially if melee is also a thing) is a decent chance of being killed while closing to melee range. It's just far too easy IMO to close to melee and attack against foes with guns. While not OSR, I kinda hated Starfinder for the same reason. Being able to charge into melee from 20 yards away and take a swing all before the guy with a gun can get a shot off just feels wonky. That's rarely the case in a wargame. Even for something non-simulation like 40k, a good chunk of a unit is likely to be killed by firearms before they close to melee.

At the same time, it's often too easy to keep using guns at melee range.

IMO - firearms feel better in phase-based initiative systems which can help get the feel of firearms going before melee. Phases are something which wargames often do.

QuoteThe only d20 firearm rules I've seen that I haven't been totally offput by are rules that maintain the high level of abstraction when it comes to the firing of the weapons and just focus on the effects.  The more that the rules delve into burst fire, cover, moving and firing, etc., the more they move D&D, and the OSR games, away from what they do well towards their only deficiency, which is modelling the events in combat.  OSR should stick to modelling the results.

Yeah - I suppose if you keep it abstract then firearms are... fine. They just don't feel distinct from using anything else.

I think that firearm focused systems probably should lean into some level of cover/automatic fire etc. Though it's easy to get ridiculously crunchy etc. *cough* Shadowrun *cough*

I've been poking at a firearm heavy sci-fi system for a few years, so it's something I have pretty strong opinions on.

My biggest hot-take is to drastically slow base movement for firearm heavy systems so that cover/flanking and the danger of closing to melee matter more when you have to give up the round's attack to move much.

Quote from: Fheredin on March 10, 2025, 06:30:13 PMAllow me to speak as a pointedly NOT OSR indie designer.

OSR is good at marketing to its own community. If you are making an OSR game you can probably find your market pretty easily, so it is relatively easy to make OSR products which at least sell some copies and not impossible to make OSR content which sells really well. That is markedly less true of the broader RPG market, where marketing becomes difficult to impossible without a gigantic web presence. If I had to describe the OSR marketing experience I have seen with a metaphor, it's like fishing with a tidal pool. You don't have to have a boat or even a fishing rod; you just wait for the tide to go out and then grab a trapped fish with your bare hands. It's shocking how simple and reliable a technique this is.

That 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.

If I had to describe OSR in brief, it's that it's something of RPG junk food. Sure, really good chefs can crush Cheetos and cover a steak in them, but by and large most people are into OSR for comfort food rather than personal growth, and a lot of the negative attitudes you see in the OSR remind me of children complaining when their parents tell them to eat their peas.

This is the opposite of the truth. OSR is probably responsible for most of the experimentation and new ideas coming into the hobby right now, for better or worse.

Quote from: jhkim on March 11, 2025, 03:06:22 PM

Quote from: Corolinth on March 11, 2025, 12:58:45 PM

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.

Why would I play the OSR game as opposed to the non-OSR game?

You pose the driving question, and I'm increasingly convinced that the answer is contained in the second half of my reply to Tenbones - you wouldn't, but there are lots of people who will only play D&D. I think that's also the source of the resistance to including other old games under the umbrella of OSR.

I think there may also be an element of trying to hold on to a captive market.

Quote from: estar on March 11, 2025, 08:51:45 AMand 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.

Quote from: estar on March 11, 2025, 09:08:34 AMDoesn't seem to be an issue for White Star (Mithral Seller), Stars without Number (adamantine seller), or Cities without Number (mithral seller).

You say that like it means something. Adamantine is 5001 copies.

1) Lots of things that suck are popular.
2) Players of tabletop roleplaying games easily number in the millions.

To have an adamantine seller badge on Drivethru, you have to sell to less than 0.5% of the player base. I'm sure that's great for a small-time publisher to get that kind of numbers on a book. It's not an argument that the OSR systems do anything well. Especially when nobody in the OSR community accepts the same appeal to popularity as a valid argument regarding the obvious market leader.

Quote from: Spobo on March 11, 2025, 08:46:47 PMThis is the opposite of the truth. OSR is probably responsible for most of the experimentation and new ideas coming into the hobby right now, for better or worse.

Examples, please?

Bear in mind that NON-OSR games include thing like Dread, which uses a jenga tower, ultralight narrative games like Lady Blackbird, where you have to engage in roleplay to get Refreshes, all the PbtA and FitD games, and Blades includes clocks and a mechanic I can only describe as Just In Time inventory selection, and Cortex uses it's metacurrency Plot Points to create game feel.

I am not saying that I personally like all of these mechanics. Plot Points and Just In Time inventory irk me a significant amount. However, when you actually put the innovations in the broader RPG space in perspective (and this is by no means an exhaustive list) it becomes clear that there is a lot of experimentation in RPGs outside of OSR.

I suppose you can try to frame the argument into a specific range of years which favors OSR. I would say that there was a growth spurt of experimentation in RPG mechanics around the Winter of The Forge and the first few years afterwards and that experimentation has dwindled in more recent years. But I think that's more a product of the broader RPG market having a strong left political tilt and suffering from the associated brain-rot, and trying to frame this with an age range that favors OSR is probably a much harder task than you think.

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 11, 2025, 03:28:32 PMOK, I'd appreciate it if you told me where my understanding fails on this subject.

OK so the first thing to understand the final piece of the OSR puzzle fell into place when Chris Gonnerman of Basic Fantasy, Matt Finch and Stuart Marshall of OSRIC realized that if you take the open content of the d20 SRD stripped out the newer mechanics what left is a hop and a skip from a classic edition.

But even so, it takes a lot of work to turn that into something like Basic Fantasy and OSRIC and there was legal risks involved as nobody tried to make a retro-clone before. The closest attempt was Castles and Crusades and Troll Lords opted to design a drop-in replacement instead.

OSRIC, and Basic Fantasy came out, didn't get sued into oblivion then we get Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, and by 2010 we are off to the races.

Now step back and thinks about what happen for a second. Somebody took content, the d20-SRD that is OPEN for ANYBODY to use under the OGL. And repurposed this to make a retro-clone. Yeah it took some imagination to see how to do this in the first place, and yeah some balls to undertake the legal risk.

But once that was accomplish the "hack" to get a classic edition out in print again is literally open for anybody else to use. It not like GURPS or Savage Worlds where the author/company controls the IP. And Dan Proctor was one of the first to realize this and put in the work to make Labyrinth.

Now, someone might be thinking, "But yeah, all they are doing is making clones of existing IP. What the innovation in that?" Sure but is that all you can do when you start stripping the D20 SRD and rebuilding it?

Of course not. 

You could do something different, which where I enter the picture and where folks like James Raggi enter the pictures. I slapped a skill system on top of Swords & Wizardry added some classes that reflect some common character types found in my GURPS campaign, a few house rules, and came out with my Majestic Wilderlands. James Raggi took his ideas about systems and weird horror and came out with Lamentations of the Flame Princess.

Now, both of our efforts will still be very much in the classic D&D ballpark. That is not the point. What is needed to be understand is that I didn't ask anybody for permission, nor did James Raggi, Dan Proctor, and others. We had our ideas and ran with it. Hell, my Majestic Wilderlands is basically a second-generation system because I built on top of Finch's Swords & Wizardry Core as it, too, was 100% open content. I told Matt Finch what I was doing and he was OK with it, but I didn't ask permission because that was already given in the OGL license for his S&W SRD.

OK so now we are talking 2010 to 2012 and a bunch of folks STILL doing D&D shit. But again think about it. Since nobody in that wave of releases was asking permission beyond making sure they followed the OGL. What to stop people from taking it even further afield?

Nothing.

Now, there are compelling reasons to stick with classic systems. For me, it was because my focus was and still remains on making Sandbox settings and adventures. I didn't want to reinvent the wheel with a system. I knew the size of the D&D audience and wanted my material to be as accessible as possible. So I choose to use D&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry.

You have to keep that in mind when you look at the OSR. Everybody participating is choosing to do what they do free from any legal or logistical requirement to adhere to a particular standard. The reason that classic editions of D&D dominate the OSR is that presented with the available options, they choose to work with classic D&D rather than something else.

But this is not sufficient to bring about the OSR. The other key is the revolution of digital technology and the internet and its impact on publishing and distributing books. The key moment for that side was the maturing of Lulu and Print on Demand in the late 2000s. This had two key impacts. One was that capital barriers dropped to low levels, to the point where the major cost is the amount of time you have to realize your vision. The second impact with hard work, some skills, and a little luck, a author can bootstrap themselves from releasing PDFs with $100 budgets for art to full scale print runs without having to dip into saving or raise capital.

Finally, this got accelerated in the late 2010s with the arrival of Kickstarter and crowdfunding. For most, like myself, it still was a slow process of building up but the odds of something catching on resulting in a major boost grew by an order of magnitude. Mostly because crowdfunding sites merged social media outreach with funding.

Now you are probably going "Rob what does has to do with my points, heck what does this has to do with what the OSR is not good at."

Because the combination of open content IP, low capital threshold, and efficient distribution via the internet means people with "crazy" ideas can realize them in a work that is every bit as professional as those released by top-tier RPG companies within the time and budget they have for a hobby. In your case, you could pursue creative ideas that are felt to be neglected or ignored. Or felt to be poorly done, like firearms. There is no point of control that allows somebody or a group to stop that individual from releasing that work in the form they want.

The other side effect is that projects can be sustained comfortably for a long time with audiences in the hundreds. I am not just talking about the business side, I am talking about the creative side as well. Who wants to continue sharing after releasing something and six months later have ten downloads and zero feedback. However, if you manage to get a couple of dozens folks talking with you, perhaps gaming with you, suddenly doing the extra work in design and presentation feels like it worth it.


So I know the explanation is long but it why the OSR is what it is and why it definitely not a walled garden.

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 11, 2025, 03:28:32 PMAll right. Challenge accepted.

Logically, I'll start small and build up because I don't have the kind of finances needed to pay for art and other production costs. This may take a few years, but I'm in.

Excellent! So when you firm up your project idea start getting involved in talking about it here or other forms of social media. The goal for your first project should get enough folks interested to get a 100 sales your first year. From my experience, that seems to be the threshold where folks feel that their hobby time was worth it. As for the money, try to get between $3 to $5 in profit. It not about the money it about feeling that the extra time pursuing your creative vision was worth it. And again from experience having $200 to $400 after that first year seems to be the threshold.

Afterward, take it at whatever pace you are comfortable with and have the time and resources for it.

Hope this helps, and feel free to message me if you need advice or help.

Quote from: Corolinth on March 11, 2025, 09:25:53 PMYou say that like it means something. Adamantine is 5001 copies.

1) Lots of things that suck are popular.
2) Players of tabletop roleplaying games easily number in the millions.

To have an adamantine seller badge on Drivethru, you have to sell to less than 0.5% of the player base. I'm sure that's great for a small-time publisher to get that kind of numbers on a book. It's not an argument that the OSR systems do anything well. Especially when nobody in the OSR community accepts the same appeal to popularity as a valid argument regarding the obvious market leader.

Yeah that sounds nice and all as a counterpoint until you look here

https://legacy.drivethrurpg.com/metal.php?

and realize that out of the thousands of products bought and sold on DriveThruRPG, only .18%, or 286 products, hit Adamantine, and .35%, or 551 products, hit Mithral. That list includes recognized leaders like Chaosium, Mongoose, Pinnacle, etc.

But how big is DriveThruRPG really? It turns out if you happen to have a steady seller like I do in Blackmarsh, you look at the order number of your first customer in January and track that over the years. 

Which I did

(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEi2HRrvKzbhdHOC9EOd-kc1Jx1YfkiX3v77X98jBE39H3Tksi12cE2YwUUshp6cL38gBX-V3G2buJOv-GLTbzPWV6Kl0_X6nfHwDEtdZgGwE4ZFYaDadelVmD2Yh8T8KmGZSo8wmsUMXpSSKIPM9xaiJaY5ZtW1xL7zrGzbQsWcaVRb5MG9ByiwLvgwA7sj)

But since we don't know what are all the uses of order numbers probably they didn't have 4,672,383 sales in 2023. But we can say they have ten times the volume in 2023 compared to 2008. That the pandemic in 2020 caused nearly a 50% boost in sales.

While metal levels only offer a ballpark figure, we can see how an OSR RPG with gun combat is doing relative to a non-OSR RPG with gun combat.

Quote from: estar on March 11, 2025, 05:32:18 PMThe OSR existed prior to Targa speaking as someone who was involved with Targa

True, I should have said with focus and some organization. An old school way of playing has been around since before the internet was popular by placing notices on physical bulletin boards, if we want to be specific. I believe TARGA was one of the first 'watering holes' for people to gather, on the Yahoogroup, in significant numbers, although newsgroups probably were peak in numbers, not participation, I was never a big fan of newsgroups.

Quote from: tenbones on March 11, 2025, 06:33:25 PMI'm going to point out that this is drifting from the actual intent of the thread. Respectfully Rob, you're talking, imo, more about Marketing than what I think this thread is actually about. There is something to be said about the connection between the market success of a product and its assumed quality - but we both know that's not the reality of reality.

I disagree that either side of our debate is about popularity or marketing. He is saying the OSR chokes experimentation; I contend it is the opposite. I just wrote a post detailing how I feel the logistics of the OSR enables creative freedom and, heck, creative anarchy.

I didn't mention that the two broad conditions I talked about, freely available IP and the use of digital technology for production and distribution, have a positive effect on the creative diversity of any system. The OSR is not special because it uses classic D&D. Cepheus has ignited a similar creative storm among Traveller fans, and fans of d100 RPGs (Runequest, Mythras, BRP) are at the start of their creative storm.

Quote from: tenbones on March 11, 2025, 06:33:25 PMI'm *agreeing* with you on the basis of longevity of the OSR. There are, however, many OSR products that aren't widely accepted by the larger gaming populace even within the walled garden. Perhaps you could speak to this better than I could.

First, I take issue with any characterization of the OSR as a walled garden which I addressed in another post.

To discuss your main point, popularity only matters at the low end of the scale. A hobbyist who takes the time to do the extra work to make a publishable work isn't going to build on their creative ideas if they have a handful of downloads/sales/responses in a year. It will wind up as a creative deadend regardless of the merits. The incentive isn't there for most folks under those circumstances.

On the flipside, a threshold exists beyond which many hobbyists will continue developing their creative ideas. There is enough downloads/sales/responses that the author feels their work has been rewarded whether it is financial or social.

What is that threshold? Well, my best guess is that it is in the low hundreds. Back in 2015, for example, we would have had to rely on a lot of anecdotal evidence. But these days, we can look at crowdfunding numbers and see who does projects over and over again and who doesn't. I recommend focusing on modest successes like those with a couple of hundred backers and thousands of dollars raised.

Quote from: tenbones on March 11, 2025, 06:33:25 PMto use an obvious example, Pundits products are *qualitatively* good by my standards of the OSR, as are yours.

Appreciate the compliment.

Quote from: tenbones on March 11, 2025, 06:33:25 PMMy perception *seems* to be that all OSR products, (to the point where I accept what you define as OSR) are 90% compatible with one another, yet the OSR products that are clearly making large sums of money, isn't translating to the rest of the OSR community. Or am I wrong? I'm not crapping on anyone or their product, I'm just asking as a relative outsider - to use an obvious example, Pundits products are *qualitatively* good by my standards of the OSR, as are yours. But you guys are doing well. But are the people that glommed onto Shadowdark and ACKS and DCC (OSR/not OSR) also eating up your guy's products too?

First a bit of a flippant remark I guess I will find out in late April when I do my Majestic Fantasy Realms, Northern Marches kickstarter. Kelsey and her team hit 1,000,000 on the first day of their Western Reaches KS also, in part, a hexcrawl formatted setting.

On a more serious note, no I don't worry about the Shadowdarks and the OSEs of the OSR. It is a post scarcity economy as far as I am concerned.

Why? Because the pool we are all pulling from is much vaster than what any of the OSR publishes have achieved. In short we haven't reached peak OSR.

For example, Shadowdark pulled in about 13,000 backers, Dolmenwood around 10,000. When you look at the bigger RPG kickstarters like those for Free League and 5e like Matt Colville. My view is that we are long way from whatever upper limit there is.

This may be more important in the long run.

Let's look at 5e, we have a dominant publisher who controls the IP, Wizards of the Coast. So if their sales and popularity sink, what else sink all those who support 5e 'as is'.

The same thing happens with Paizo, Pathfinder, and third parties.

Look at Evil Hat, Fate, and third parties.

In all these cases, we have a dominant publisher who sets the creative agenda upon which the fortunes of third parties rise and fall.

The OSR in contrast, doesn't have a dominant publisher setting the creative agenda. This is a unique situation at the moment. Because of that we will have to see how it plays out. But keep in mind in 2014 Labyrinth Lord was THE place to go for B/X D&D. Dan Proctor took a step back, now much was happening in the B/X space. Then OSE happened. It wasn't overnight but it reached a tipping point where it became THE place to go for B/X D&D. The same with the DCC RPG a decade, and the same thing recently with Shadowdark.

So my best guess is that the OSR will continue to grow. It won't dominate the RPG hobby but be far more substantial than it is now. Then, it eventually hits a steady state as companies and individual authors enter and exit. With the caveat that no Black Swan events occur. Also we will get a better sense as time goes by of the ebbs and flows of a OSR style niche.

Also if any one OSR company grows "that big" like Paizo size in its heyday? Then it will become its own niche with its own distinct creative agenda. The closest example we have now would be Goodman Games. While not Paizo-size, it has its own distinct creative agenda and niche.

Quote from: tenbones on March 11, 2025, 06:33:25 PMMY contention with the OSR, and what I thought this thread was *actually* about is talking about mechanics. I honestly do feel the OSR products have "something" that their consumers hang onto. I profess to not understand why, other than nostalgia, what that is.

I am self-aware enough to tell you why I do the things I do with classic D&D mechanics. But I am not a good source to answer your question because my approach with D&D mechanics is basically the same as my approach with GURPS mechanics. And yes I will be happy to explain the details of this if you like but that not germane to answering your question. However, my approach is atypical based on what I experienced as a player.

What I experienced as a player is a couple of things.

1) While it is not ALL about adventuring, a large part is. Classic D&D combat, spellcasting, and what classes can and can't do more than covers what is needed for a campaign focused on adventuring.

2) The mechanics are straightforward, particularly for B/X D&D which is by far the most popular foundation on which OSR hobbyists like to build. To specific B/X mechanics with AD&D 1e stuff. Second in popularity are minimalist D&Dish systems like Black Hack, Shadowdark, Mork Borg. The ones that rise to top are those where the author successfully designed every subsystem to pull its weight.

3) Everything beyond spellcasting and combat is idiosyncratic. If it wasn't something addressed in B/X D&D then the OSR is all over the map as to how stuff outside of spellcasting and combat is handled. I am not talking just about publishers but also individual campaigns. However, while the mechanics may vary, there is a strong "OK that makes sense for your character." thread.

4) There is a strong tendency toward minimalism. Yes we have ACKS II but is because Macris is being through not about him making the second coming of GURPS Vehicles or Hackmaster 4e. The guts of his work still rest on the B/X foundation I mentioned earlier.

5) OSR folks like being able to use other OSR folk's stuff. This not about open content. They like being able to pick up a module or a setting and, with some light adjustments, use 'as is' with whatever OSR system they like. The sheer volume of supplemental material is an important reason why the OSR remains centered on classic D&D rather iterating into using something very different. I have picked up Shadowdark zines and most of it was useful for my Majestic Fantasy RPG campaign.

Quote from: tenbones on March 11, 2025, 06:33:25 PMIf I produced an "OSR inspired" product - using all the d20 dice, and all my old Basic D&D assumptions outside of the mechanical oddities I feel are clunky - which to be clear, exist in other games, I suspect without *any* marketing material, most OSR people would write it off as a Fantasy Heartbreaker and ignore it.

There are three options, in my opinion, that lead to a successful OSR system.

1) It is presented with a distinct voice with a clear creative agenda. ACKS, DCC RPG, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, Mork Borg, and my own Majestic Fantasy Rules are examples of this.

2) It is well presented. I am not talking "oh that good" presentation, I am talking "OMG that fucking great" presentation. That was the key to OSE's success and the core retro clone successes like OSRIC and Swords & Wizardry.

3) It is well designed. ACKS fall into this as well as Shadowdark and the various Kevin Crawford titles like Worlds without Number. Again like presentation the design can't be just good, it "has to be OMG that fucking good.

But none of these matter if nobody knows about it which is why all of the above authors participated in the OSR community social media. Just as important, they came across as authentic and passionate about their creative vision.

I hope this helps answer some of your questions.

OSR is bad at emulating rules other than past editions of D&D? As interesting as OSR might get, it's ultimately just an extension of the D&D genre. (I consider D&D it's own genre at this point.)

We don't have anything similar for other genres, even though we really should. There's numerous past games and settings that have been abandoned and deserve to come back into the limelight. The neglected D&D settings like Planescape, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Ravenloft and Eberron are some examples, but there's plenty of non-D&D TSR settings that deserve better, and plenty of non-TSR games and genres.

X-Files-inspired conspiracy technothrillers, Y2K era space opera kitchen sinks, Dresden Files-esque urban fantasy, historical fantasy, alternate history, postapoc, etc.

Back in the 2000s Eden Studios produced All Flesh Must Be Eaten and got a ton of mileage out of the zombie genre. There were numerous settings or "deadworlds" with wildly different takes on zombies, such as nazi zombies, alien zombies, cyborg zombies, ice cream zombies, etc.

We need that kind of creativity and density in other genres. I am sick to death of the oversaturated D&D genre.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 12, 2025, 10:09:54 AMOSR is bad at emulating rules other than past editions of D&D? As interesting as OSR might get, it's ultimately just an extension of the D&D genre. (I consider D&D it's own genre at this point.)

I could be wrong, but I think its not that non-D&D games don't have "OSR" type games so much as they aren't considered OSR by the D&D fans.

Quote from: estar on March 12, 2025, 12:48:21 AM...I hope this helps answer some of your questions.

Good stuff man. I appreciate your opinions as always. Heh, and I'm not being flippant about any of this - I'm also working on entering the fray. Information like this is invaluable.

Hmmmm.

You can certainly have good superhero OSRish games (Kevin Crawford has a couple IIRC), or in any genre.

Of course you can do OSR gun combat, since Boot Hill.

The problem is, the OSR label is most useful when it means "compatible to TSR D&D", and - while Boot Hill and gamma World are in theory compatible with AD&D - certain superhero tropes might not be.

So, since OSR is basically "compatible to TSR D&D", anything that gets TOO far from the original is not ideal. But you can make a case for almost anything.

For example, in theory you can have an OSR game with no magic, monsters, or classes, but why call it OSR at this point? Why make it compatible to D&D if you're not using the adventures, spell lists, monster manuals, etc.?

EDIT: one thing that comes to mind is that this OSR is a bit geared towards "zero to hero" progression, so it'd be difficult to have an OSR where you play as ordinary people that don't improve much, or that you are superheroes that don't change much either. OTOH msot people find "zero to hero" too extreme and prefer playing levels 3-10...

Quote from: estar on March 11, 2025, 08:51:45 AM

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.

Estar, I havent read all your posts but I'll try a brief caveats/nitpicks because I value your opinion.

MCC RPG is not a huge departure from old-school D&D with its weirdness, androids, tharks, strange artifacts, spaceships, etc.

TBH is not exactly the same kind of game as Mork Borg, because IMO TBH and many OSR games including Knave is trying are trying to play D&D in an easier/better way.

Mork Bork seems to be exactly what you're saying: pandering to the OSR crowd without actually being OSR.

BTW, here is a list of games labeled "OSR games" by themselves; it is basically D&Dish stuff.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/browse?ruleSystem=45582-old-school-revival-osr&src=fid45582

As for MW, I think, as I mentioned above:

"EDIT: one thing that comes to mind is that this OSR is a bit geared towards "zero to hero" progression, so it'd be difficult to have an OSR where you play as ordinary people that don't improve much, or that you are superheroes that don't change much either. OTOH most people find "zero to hero" too extreme and prefer playing levels 3-10..."

MW seems to be firmly OSR IMO, whether it stays in the low levels or not.

Quote from: tenbones on March 12, 2025, 10:55:29 AMGood stuff man. I appreciate your opinions as always. Heh, and I'm not being flippant about any of this - I'm also working on entering the fray. Information like this is invaluable.

Glad to have helped.

Ultimately, the idea is to take a survey of what was done recently and back in the day. After that make your own call on what to do with it.

What I wrote about the topic back in 2009.

QuoteTo me the Old School Renaissance is not about playing a particular set of rules in a particular way, the dungeon crawl. It is about going back to the roots of our hobby and seeing what we could do differently. What avenues were not explored because of the commercial and personal interests of the game designers of the time.

What I can help with is my experience with the consequences of various creative choices and questions about logistics.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on March 12, 2025, 11:50:29 AMHmmmm.

You can certainly have good superhero OSRish games (Kevin Crawford has a couple IIRC), or in any genre.

Of course you can do OSR gun combat, since Boot Hill.

The problem is, the OSR label is most useful when it means "compatible to TSR D&D", and - while Boot Hill and gamma World are in theory compatible with AD&D - certain superhero tropes might not be.

So, since OSR is basically "compatible to TSR D&D", anything that gets TOO far from the original is not ideal. But you can make a case for almost anything.

For example, in theory you can have an OSR game with no magic, monsters, or classes, but why call it OSR at this point? Why make it compatible to D&D if you're not using the adventures, spell lists, monster manuals, etc.?

EDIT: one thing that comes to mind is that this OSR is a bit geared towards "zero to hero" progression, so it'd be difficult to have an OSR where you play as ordinary people that don't improve much, or that you are superheroes that don't change much either. OTOH msot people find "zero to hero" too extreme and prefer playing levels 3-10...

What I mean is, I'd like to have more retroclones of other games like Gamma World, Star Frontiers, Dark•Matter, Urban Arcana, etc. as well as decentralized production for those genres in general. But I suppose that's a pipe dream

Quote from: estar on March 12, 2025, 12:48:21 AMIn short we haven't reached peak OSR.

For example, Shadowdark pulled in about 13,000 backers, Dolmenwood around 10,000. When you look at the bigger RPG kickstarters like those for Free League and 5e like Matt Colville. My view is that we are long way from whatever upper limit there is.

This may be more important in the long run.

Let's look at 5e, we have a dominant publisher who controls the IP, Wizards of the Coast. So if their sales and popularity sink, what else sink all those who support 5e 'as is'.

The same thing happens with Paizo, Pathfinder, and third parties.

Look at Evil Hat, Fate, and third parties.

In all these cases, we have a dominant publisher who sets the creative agenda upon which the fortunes of third parties rise and fall.

The OSR in contrast, doesn't have a dominant publisher setting the creative agenda. This is a unique situation at the moment.

I tend to agree, but I also suspect that if OSR does reach its peak, that there will become a dominant publisher.

Look at Paizo and Evil Hat. In the early 2000s, there were two booms of RPGs - the myriad of D20 games and supplements, and the Forge/post-Forge boom of story games. However, within a decade, Paizo would completely dominate the D20 space, and Evil Hat would come to dominate the story game space - mostly with FATE books.

Arguably, Powered-by-the-Apocalypse is still a movement like the OSR. Evil Hat publishes some PbtA games, but there are still lots of PbtA games by a variety of publishers. The biggest Kickstarter was Avatar Legends by Magpie Games.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 12, 2025, 01:37:12 PMWhat I mean is, I'd like to have more retroclones of other games like Gamma World, Star Frontiers, Dark•Matter, Urban Arcana, etc. as well as decentralized production for those genres in general. But I suppose that's a pipe dream

AS far as Gamma World, have you looked at Sorcery & Super Science? (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/83075/sorcery-super-science)

I've looked at a number of games spanning decades. I use the Mutant Future wiki (https://mutant-future.fandom.com/wiki/Gaming_Philosophy) for research.

Quote from: Fheredin on March 11, 2025, 09:50:37 PM

Quote from: Spobo on March 11, 2025, 08:46:47 PMThis is the opposite of the truth. OSR is probably responsible for most of the experimentation and new ideas coming into the hobby right now, for better or worse.

Examples, please?

Bear in mind that NON-OSR games include thing like Dread, which uses a jenga tower, ultralight narrative games like Lady Blackbird, where you have to engage in roleplay to get Refreshes, all the PbtA and FitD games, and Blades includes clocks and a mechanic I can only describe as Just In Time inventory selection, and Cortex uses it's metacurrency Plot Points to create game feel.

I am not saying that I personally like all of these mechanics. Plot Points and Just In Time inventory irk me a significant amount. However, when you actually put the innovations in the broader RPG space in perspective (and this is by no means an exhaustive list) it becomes clear that there is a lot of experimentation in RPGs outside of OSR.

I suppose you can try to frame the argument into a specific range of years which favors OSR. I would say that there was a growth spurt of experimentation in RPG mechanics around the Winter of The Forge and the first few years afterwards and that experimentation has dwindled in more recent years. But I think that's more a product of the broader RPG market having a strong left political tilt and suffering from the associated brain-rot, and trying to frame this with an age range that favors OSR is probably a much harder task than you think.

In my opinion those either don't count because they're not really rpgs (always hated The Forge) and they're more like storygames, or because they're not really new. Dread and Forge games are somewhat old at this point. PbtA isn't new either and it's pretty oversaturated. The concept of a metacurrency definitely doesn't count as new. Neither does using tag words and phrases like FATE does.

OSR games, while they're based on even older stuff in early D&D, are much more creative in implementation and settings. There are games that branch out into different genres, including other subgenres of fantasy. Or in Pundit's case, eras of real history. It has a lot more vitality because it's largely a grassroots movement of dozens of different blogs, publishers, and individuals that tinker with it. There are new takes on systems all the time, like with inventory systems or mass combat for example. Since the focus is often on creating a wide open sandbox instead of a set adventure path, there's much more emphasis on the creation of tools and random tables to assist GMs with actually running games at the table. So it isn't just new games, it's ways of making everyone's existing games consistently fresh and interesting.

I'm mainly taking issue with what you said before, about OSR people being too concerned with purity to make anything new. That's the opposite of what they're doing.

Quote from: Fheredin on March 11, 2025, 09:50:37 PMExamples, please?

over 14k in innovative materials coming out of the OSR (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/browse?ruleSystem=45582-old-school-revival-osr&src=fid45582)

Go nuts.

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

I don't think so. You can scale it up by adding in things like ogres, hobgoblins, trolls, goblin champions/lords/kings.

Just like in the anime and manga.

Quote from: Mishihari on March 11, 2025, 02:58:43 PMThere's a couple of types of play that I haven't seen done well in an OSR game.  The key word here is "well;" I've seen games have done a bit with these, but in a very cursory manner.  I'll admit up front that my experience with OSR is very limited, so I'd be interested in hearing about any counterexample.
    Survival play like journey through Mirkwood or Oregon Trail
    Movement challenges like those found in the Tomb Raider and Uncharted video games
    Stealth, as done in video games like Tenchu

The OSR isn't meant to emulate video games. It's meant to emulate the physical world to a certain degree.

Quote from: blackstone on March 18, 2025, 02:17:59 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on March 11, 2025, 02:58:43 PMThere's a couple of types of play that I haven't seen done well in an OSR game.  The key word here is "well;" I've seen games have done a bit with these, but in a very cursory manner.  I'll admit up front that my experience with OSR is very limited, so I'd be interested in hearing about any counterexample.
    Survival play like journey through Mirkwood or Oregon Trail
    Movement challenges like those found in the Tomb Raider and Uncharted video games
    Stealth, as done in video games like Tenchu

The OSR isn't meant to emulate video games. It's meant to emulate the physical world to a certain degree.

Those are all things that are done in real life.  Those video games examples are just a useful shorthand for a type of experience.  I suppose for those insufficiently cultured I should have added, 1)  Wilderness play focused on ensuring you have enough food, water, heat etc to not die, 2)  Play focused on moving through a difficult environment with climbing, parkour, swimming, etc, and 3) Play focused on keeping the enemy unaware of your presence.  I've not seen any D&D style rules with enough depth and detail to make any of these interesting.

Quote from: blackstone on March 18, 2025, 02:03:45 PM

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

I don't think so. You can scale it up by adding in things like ogres, hobgoblins, trolls, goblin champions/lords/kings.

Just like in the anime and manga.

And add a few complete surprise enemies, that the players won't recognize, even if they are familiar with traditional fantasy foes.  Something with tentacles.  Something that has unique abilities.  Something that hides in darkness.  Something that can teleport.  Just keep them close to being level appropriate.

I find the OSR's focus on player skill over character sheet doesn't fit so well for alien realities like that seen in Homestuck or Glorantha, where the basic laws of physics are different from our own. For instance, in the first, 'Narrative relevance' is a stat that can be taken or gived to others. One entire class of characters is doomed to narrative irrelevance simply because of this. Another class can steal narrative relevance from others, turning them into side characters. This is not something you'd know without doing an extensive dive.

Quote from: Man at Arms on March 19, 2025, 12:23:59 AM

Quote from: blackstone on March 18, 2025, 02:03:45 PM

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

I don't think so. You can scale it up by adding in things like ogres, hobgoblins, trolls, goblin champions/lords/kings.

Just like in the anime and manga.

And add a few complete surprise enemies, that the players won't recognize, even if they are familiar with traditional fantasy foes.  Something with tentacles.  Something that has unique abilities.  Something that hides in darkness.  Something that can teleport.  Just keep them close to being level appropriate.

Like the Chaos Space Marine goblin slayer fights in one of the prequel manga

Quote from: Mishihari on March 18, 2025, 02:59:46 PMI suppose for those insufficiently cultured

You lost me right there. Way to go with the underhanded insult.

Quote from: blackstone on March 19, 2025, 07:46:14 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on March 18, 2025, 02:59:46 PMI suppose for those insufficiently cultured

You lost me right there. Way to go with the underhanded insult.

Video games as culture?  That was humor, not an insult.  Lighten up man.

Quote from: Mishihari on March 19, 2025, 10:29:59 AM

Quote from: blackstone on March 19, 2025, 07:46:14 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on March 18, 2025, 02:59:46 PMI suppose for those insufficiently cultured

You lost me right there. Way to go with the underhanded insult.

Video games as culture?  That was humor, not an insult.  Lighten up man.

Ok, very well..

To answer your question: everything you've mentioned can be found in the 1st ed DMG, the Wilderness Survival Guide, the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide. I'd check those to see if they fulfil your needs.

If not, just make something up. As long as you are fair and consistent with your group, it's not a problem.

Quote from: blackstone on March 18, 2025, 02:03:45 PM

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

I don't think so. You can scale it up by adding in things like ogres, hobgoblins, trolls, goblin champions/lords/kings.

Just like in the anime and manga.

That's a little beside the point. Adding in higher level threats only keeps low level threats relevant by making them add-ons to another monster.

As a disclaimer, I've only read the Goblin Slayer manga, so everything that follows it based on that.

The "point" Goblin Slayer is making, if you can call it that, is that even a base goblin can kill an experienced adventurer, under the right circumstances. That "under the right circumstances" is a big qualifier. The manga is actually very clear that in a straight fight, a lone goblin isn't much of a threat even to a rookie adventurer. Experienced adventurers get killed by goblins because they get complacent. They get tricked, trapped or ambushed. This could involve traps or poison, which work fine in OSR with the save-or-die rules, but let's stick with the ambush version:

When this is shown in the manga, there's a consistent way it's often represented: You get a moment of realization, where the adventurer sees their mistake, and then a "critical hit", usually either a stab to the abdomen or a bash on the head. The adventurer is stunned or otherwise disabled, and they get swarmed by goblins as the shot cuts away from them.

Can OSR games do this? Well, the answer is "some of them". There's three factors in play, 1) the surprise attack, 2) the "critical hit", and 3) the swarm. For example, Dolmenwood has no flanking or critical hit rules, and surprise does nothing except give you a free round to attack. This scenario really can't play out in that game, unless the adventurer is already at low health or the goblin has accesss to the backstab ability. On the other hand, Tales of Argosa has trauma rules, so if the goblin rolls a 19 on the attack and then a good roll on the trauma table, that could impose a status ailment (stunned or otherwise), which combined with its rules for outnumbering enemies, would make the subsequent swarm attack a death sentence for the adventurer.

I'm not sure that's actually what BadApple is thinking of though. I think what he's getting at is more the "puncher's chance", the idea that no matter how unskilled the attacker, there's always a chance that they could take you out in a single lucky shot. IME very few RPGs do that, and it's largely just a gameplay consideration. RPG combat is swingy and random enough as is. I can only think of a few games where there's a significant chance of a lucky shot taking an experienced character from full health to dead in one go.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 19, 2025, 11:06:46 AM...

I'm not sure that's actually what BadApple is thinking of though. I think what he's getting at is more the "puncher's chance", the idea that no matter how unskilled the attacker, there's always a chance that they could take you out in a single lucky shot. IME very few RPGs do that, and it's largely just a gameplay consideration. RPG combat is swingy and random enough as is. I can only think of a few games where there's a significant chance of a lucky shot taking an experienced character from full health to dead in one go.

At least most of the OSR games handle that part only indirectly, by the degrading of hit points.  Which is sitting with a foot in both camps, one for swingy and random and the other in the gameplay hard to kill that way. 

Because you are correct, if you want to consider both gameplay and vibe at the same time, then there has to be some kind of compromise.  Now that we've agreed that it's for sale, it only remains to negotiate the price.  Some games negotiate it trying unabashedly to set a middle ground.  Others try to cover up the facts with pretense.

Personally, I think the old school technique of hit points being a buffer, however one that can realistically get ground down, is one of the better ways to handle the issue.  Of course, the infamous "save or die" stakes out another piece of territory.  You can't be killed in a single shot, absent save or die.  You can be ground down to the point that a single shot will take you out.  When you start, you've got no real buffer. The buffer grows as you do.

Most games that use pretense for this also assume the GM is going to fudge things.  So we all pretend that the system is deadly, but if the GM doesn't want your character to die from the swingy combat, then you don't.  I get why some players like that, but I don't find it very appealing.

Quote from: blackstone on March 19, 2025, 10:56:49 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on March 19, 2025, 10:29:59 AM

Quote from: blackstone on March 19, 2025, 07:46:14 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on March 18, 2025, 02:59:46 PMI suppose for those insufficiently cultured

You lost me right there. Way to go with the underhanded insult.

Video games as culture?  That was humor, not an insult.  Lighten up man.

Ok, very well..

To answer your question: everything you've mentioned can be found in the 1st ed DMG, the Wilderness Survival Guide, the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide. I'd check those to see if they fulfil your needs.

If not, just make something up. As long as you are fair and consistent with your group, it's not a problem.

I tried to use the WSG back in the day.  The ideas were good but it was boring to use in play.  Same for the rest.  I'd like games where survival, stealth, and movement challenges can have as great a focus as combat.  The systems I've seen are too simplistic to spend any time with and have the play be interesting.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 19, 2025, 11:17:35 AMPersonally, I think the old school technique of hit points being a buffer, however one that can realistically get ground down, is one of the better ways to handle the issue.  Of course, the infamous "save or die" stakes out another piece of territory.  You can't be killed in a single shot, absent save or die.  You can be ground down to the point that a single shot will take you out.  When you start, you've got no real buffer. The buffer grows as you do.

In my experience, a sweet spot is possible where the HP buffer (before being ground down) still allows a single really good shot to take you out -- with an increasing chance of being taken out by a lesser single shot as the buffer is whittled away. All without "save or die" mechanics. It's just a matter of finding the right balance between the system's swinginess and the characters' HP totals.

Quote from: Zalman on March 19, 2025, 11:42:19 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 19, 2025, 11:17:35 AMPersonally, I think the old school technique of hit points being a buffer, however one that can realistically get ground down, is one of the better ways to handle the issue.  Of course, the infamous "save or die" stakes out another piece of territory.  You can't be killed in a single shot, absent save or die.  You can be ground down to the point that a single shot will take you out.  When you start, you've got no real buffer. The buffer grows as you do.

In my experience, a sweet spot is possible where the HP buffer (before being ground down) still allows a single really good shot to take you out -- with an increasing chance of being taken out by a lesser single shot as the buffer is whittled away. All without "save or die" mechanics. It's just a matter of finding the right balance between the system's swinginess and the characters' HP totals.

I agree.  It's even easier if you have a limited Wounds/HP distinction, where critical hits or the like do some direct damage to wounds.  That's what I use in place of save or die.  Still, most characters that die do so because the hit points got whittled down first, which is system working as designed in my case.  Of course, with a sweet spot, the scaling of power matters too.  I find that it works better for me to maintain a long sweet spot if hit points and damage start at higher numbers than B/X or AD&D, but scale slower.  That is, a very high level character has something like 4 times the total "health" of a low level one, not x10 or more.

Strangely enough, removing the equivalent of the Con bonus to hit points helped a lot, in getting this to work.

Quote from: Mishihari on March 19, 2025, 11:39:39 AM

Quote from: blackstone on March 19, 2025, 10:56:49 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on March 19, 2025, 10:29:59 AM

Quote from: blackstone on March 19, 2025, 07:46:14 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on March 18, 2025, 02:59:46 PMI suppose for those insufficiently cultured

You lost me right there. Way to go with the underhanded insult.

Video games as culture?  That was humor, not an insult.  Lighten up man.

Ok, very well..

To answer your question: everything you've mentioned can be found in the 1st ed DMG, the Wilderness Survival Guide, the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide. I'd check those to see if they fulfil your needs.

If not, just make something up. As long as you are fair and consistent with your group, it's not a problem.

I tried to use the WSG back in the day.  The ideas were good but it was boring to use in play.  Same for the rest.  I'd like games where survival, stealth, and movement challenges can have as great a focus as combat.  The systems I've seen are too simplistic to spend any time with and have the play be interesting.

Sounds like you want a complex system. IMO, give Hackmaster 4e a try. Despite it being a parody, it's very playable. You can easily look past the parody aspects. Most of the parody is in the text. It was my group's game when I DM'd up to a few years ago. I've changed to a more simple system. My best friend however is still using it for his campaign.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 19, 2025, 11:06:46 AMI can only think of a few games where there's a significant chance of a lucky shot taking an experienced character from full health to dead in one go.

Hackmaster 4e is one of them. There's a game mechanic called threshold of pain. Any creature or PC has a threshold of pain, or ToP for short. Not everything does: if it lacks a nervous system, blood, etc. The ToP is 50% of your current hit points.

If a creature or PC loses 50% or more of their current hit points in a single combat round, you must perform a ToP check. The ToP check is a save vs. Death. If you fail your save, the difference between the failed roll and what the minimum target number to save vs death, is how may rounds your character or a creature is incapacitated.

BTW, every monster and PC has a 20 hp "kicker" added to your hit points when created.

Say for example you character is fighting a goblin. The goblin has 24 hit points, and your character hit it for 14. The DM rolls a save vs death for the goblin (the ToP check), and the goblin missed it by 5. That goblin is falls to the ground unconscious for five rounds. After five rounds, if the goblin is still alive, the DM rolls again to see if he saves vs death again.

That's just ToP. The critical hit rules are insanely complex. I needed an Excel spreadsheet for crits with macros running in the background designed by somebody to quicken up the pace of combat.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 19, 2025, 12:16:27 PMscale slower.  That is, a very high level character has something like 4 times the total "health" of a low level one, not x10 or more.

Strangely enough, removing the equivalent of the Con bonus to hit points helped a lot, in getting this to work.

Totally agree that a slow scale is key, and somewhere between 4x and 5x is what I use.

I use the Con equivalent, but take it out of the progression: double bonus at first level, and none thereafter (my HP scale maxes out around 30 at epic levels).

Quote from: Zalman on March 19, 2025, 11:42:19 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on March 19, 2025, 11:17:35 AMPersonally, I think the old school technique of hit points being a buffer, however one that can realistically get ground down, is one of the better ways to handle the issue.  Of course, the infamous "save or die" stakes out another piece of territory.  You can't be killed in a single shot, absent save or die.  You can be ground down to the point that a single shot will take you out.  When you start, you've got no real buffer. The buffer grows as you do.

In my experience, a sweet spot is possible where the HP buffer (before being ground down) still allows a single really good shot to take you out -- with an increasing chance of being taken out by a lesser single shot as the buffer is whittled away. All without "save or die" mechanics. It's just a matter of finding the right balance between the system's swinginess and the characters' HP totals.

I think the problem is 80% the insistence of a unified HP pool. The instant you split a character' health into multiple health pools, this problem goes away because just because one pool is large doesn't prevent another from being small.

One of the neat tricks I've adopted is tying your attributes directly to your health pools, meaning each attribute has an attached health pool and each click of the character advancement system gives you extra health for the attached health pool. This means that your build will automatically determine your health pools.

The tradeoff is, of course, that this is crunchy and involves adding bookkeeping, but it also makes tuning one hit KOs relatively easy, and provides a built in way to make sure that the GM has perfect control over when a one hit KO is on table.

Quote from: Fheredin on March 20, 2025, 03:58:45 PMI think the problem is 80% the insistence of a unified HP pool. The instant you split a character' health into multiple health pools, this problem goes away because just because one pool is large doesn't prevent another from being small.

Multiple pools is one way to split a single pool that's too large, but a single pool doesn't have to be too large. Split or single, the problem goes away when the pool being used is the right size.

QuoteThis means that your build will automatically determine your health pools.

Sure, and this is true of any system with fixed, not rolled, HP.

Quote from: blackstone on March 19, 2025, 01:47:47 PMSounds like you want a complex system.

Well, yes and no.  I want interesting and meaningful choices and consequences for stealth, movement, and survival challenges, which means more complex than anything I've seen.  But the simplest system that achieves that goal is the best one.

Quote from: blackstone on March 19, 2025, 01:47:47 PMIMO, give Hackmaster 4e a try. Despite it being a parody, it's very playable. You can easily look past the parody aspects. Most of the parody is in the text. It was my group's game when I DM'd up to a few years ago. I've changed to a more simple system. My best friend however is still using it for his campaign.

Thanks for the suggestion