TheRPGSite

Indestructoboy's video today on Shadowdark asks multiple people to try and define the OSR, and they seem to get stuck on the R.  What's closest to your view on what it means?

Viva la Resistance!

Someone once used "Old School Ruckus," which I think remains the most accurate description.  :)

I didn't vote, because I am somewhere in between the two camps.  I like having easily readable clones of the originals, or else the originals themselves on the shelf to reference; but I'd probably often prefer my own modifications, to those made by others.  Show me how it was done to start with.  Perhaps include 2 or 3 optional rules, noted as such.  Then I'll take it from there.

The OSR to me has been a big exercise in the Chesterton's Fence argument. An examination of old rules and techniques and not dismissing them out of hand. Because the refutation of old school play had largely become the new sacred cow.

I've never heard anyone say it, but I've begun to think of it as "Remedial"--as in teach people how to play in an old school way.

The whole point of the OSR from my understanding was it was all about the mentality of "old school RPGs". Lethal combat, normal heroes, debloated character options, less of the Critical Role style storytelling and a focus on both real Roleplaying and simulation to an extent. Appreciating and using what came before as it was all made for reasons that are only now becoming apparent to younger gamers.

The actual games matter only in so much as they have rules that embody the mentality of the OSR as opposed to reviving a specific game. That's why people are playing OSE more than regular B/X. Or playing derivitives that still embody the mentality such as the Without Numbers games. For an example, I wouldn't call Operation Whitebox a revival of B/X but a renaissance that uses the spirit and feeling of B/X alongside rules that worked and were created for a reason to create something new that still hearkens to the themes I mentioned before.

adding in an option for R=Rules

Quote from: THE_Leopold on January 25, 2024, 05:42:02 PM
adding in an option for R=Rules

If that literally means "the rules we used to use", that's the same thing as Revival for these purposes.

Old School Retardation at this point. The OSR was extremely useful when it began (I think renaissance was the best description, and most often used). Now it's devolved into a way for halfassed "designers" to produce tripe, similar to the d20 glut when D&D 3.0 was released. I've been happy with less and less purchases as time has gone on, honestly.

At least four meanings:

- Compatibility to TSR D&D.
- Interest in TSR D&D.
- Compatibility with old RPGs, including Traveller, FF, WFRP, etc.
- "Principles" that reflect earlier TSR D&D.

The first one is the only one that is useful for me. A label that includes FF and 5e under the same umbrella is nearly useless for classifying RPGs.

I like "Renaissance" because reminds me of Italian Renaissance; i.e., this is not TSR, but inspired by TSR and sometimes going beyond what TSR has achieved.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 25, 2024, 04:30:05 PM
The OSR to me has been a big exercise in the Chesterton's Fence argument. An examination of old rules and techniques and not dismissing them out of hand. Because the refutation of old school play had largely become the new sacred cow.

Good point.

Fake Revival or Renaissance.

Renaissance for me.

And not "Renna-sans", but the full on "Ren-ayy-sans."

Technically a renaissance is a revival of sorts, but I'd emphasize renaissance primarily due to the historical meaning of the word. Specifically that a revival is a resurgence in popularity of something; a sort of coming back into the light, which is sort of what happened. Looking at it from the perspective of the renaissance (a la 16th century), it was a revival of older thoughts and ideas that were then molded by contemporary thoughts and ideas. A sort of synthesis if you will.

Yeah, AD&D and BECMI were revived, but a lot of stuff has come out that were mixing the new and the old while trying to remain true to the old way of play.

That's how I see it anyway. Honestly I'm just glad it happened.

Quote from: Brad on January 25, 2024, 06:52:40 PM
Old School Retardation at this point. The OSR was extremely useful when it began (I think renaissance was the best description, and most often used). Now it's devolved into a way for halfassed "designers" to produce tripe, similar to the d20 glut when D&D 3.0 was released. I've been happy with less and less purchases as time has gone on, honestly.

Yeah you're right there. I don't wanna crap on anyone's cake but I've seen way too many "super artistic quirky micro" rpgs than I would've liked. Some of it isn't even really usable in games, it just looks sorta pretty.

I went with Revival. I still enjoy playing AD&D, B/X, and similar games without any modern rules adjustments. The OSR has produced some great new material for those games. Like anything that becomes popular there is a glut of crap as well. Thats ok because some OSR players may like some of that crap so no harm.

I said "revival" but I thought that you were looking for what the accurate answer was, not my personal opinion.  My preferred R is Renniasance.

Rules, not revival. Revival means I stopped playing it.l

Renaissance, I feel, is often the somewhat younger generations' choice out of necessity. Revival requires more in-depth experience with and understanding of the topic at hand.

Personally, when I tried running AD&D I tried to be reliant on folks' interpretation of their own experiences and my understanding of the mythology/zeitgeist, but even there I just didn't have the direct experience and understanding to draw from. (Possibly part of why I failed, with improv being my main weakpoint, but I digress.)

Might be that some of my fellow younger generation inhabitants do indeed know more of AD&D and the like from an academic and almost anthropological perspective, and that this informs their games. Or that they've had the luck to find folks from the older generation who genuinely played the old school and still do, to pass on the experience directly. But I think for many it's the folklore of what folks have said on forums or in articles the Old School used to feel like and what it allegedly valued in play. This in turn being compounded in part by the fact that DM rulings over rules and such were very prevalent in say 1e AD&D (in part via necessity), so at least for that sort of thing just having the official RAW doesn't guarantee an actual revival as opposed to renaissance.

Maybe. Hopefully this makes some degree of sense, even if I am talking mostly out my own ass.

Quote from: KindaMeh on January 26, 2024, 12:17:59 PM
Renaissance, I feel, is often the somewhat younger generations' choice out of necessity. Revival requires more in-depth experience with and understanding of the topic at hand.

Personally, when I tried running AD&D I tried to be reliant on folks' interpretation of their own experiences and my understanding of the mythology/zeitgeist, but even there I just didn't have the direct experience and understanding to draw from. (Possibly part of why I failed, with improv being my main weakpoint, but I digress.)

Might be that some of my fellow younger generation inhabitants do indeed know more of AD&D and the like from an academic and almost anthropological perspective, and that this informs their games. Or that they've had the luck to find folks from the older generation who genuinely played the old school and still do, to pass on the experience directly. But I think for many it's the folklore of what folks have said on forums or in articles the Old School used to feel like and what it allegedly valued in play. This in turn being compounded in part by the fact that DM rulings over rules and such were very prevalent in say 1e AD&D (in part via necessity), so at least for that sort of thing just having the official RAW doesn't guarantee an actual revival as opposed to renaissance.

Maybe. Hopefully this makes some degree of sense, even if I am talking mostly out my own ass.

I could see that for the younger generation, sure.  But the Red Box was my first and I have never, ever appreciated THAC0.  Seeing 3e remove it was a very welcome step to me, and I'd want that applied to my OSR games.  Even though I lived it and loved the game back in the day.

For me it's Renaissance and I had never until recently heard it called anything else.

We have better words in our spell lists: Resurrection and Reincarnation!

I'm going to go with Resurrection (Revival), though I could nitpick the definitions in the poll.

There's nothing wrong with new or innovative games and I enjoy playing many of them. But we don't need "OSR" to be some big tent label. If everything is "OSR" then the label becomes meaningless and might as well not exist.

The problem is people think it's some kind of special "nerd cred" to use the label. I prefer it as a mark of rules compatibility. OSR should mean I can plug your game or module into AD&D 1e/OSRIC/OD&D with minimal fuss. But I realize I'm pissing in the wind at this point. That ship has sailed.

I would say that it started as revival with the retroclones and turned into renaissance with games like Lamentations of the Flame Princess.  Now it's both depending on which OSR game we are talking about.

Old school D&D rules, easy to learn, but "fixed".

The big one is to use ascending armor class.  The old combat matrix was needlessly useless.   It was only done because of British Naval ship ratings.  A 1st class ship of the line was the best, biggest warship in the age of sail, so the term "1st class" was used to mean the best.  So AC-1 was the best, and mathematically the rules were forced to do work like that.

That can go.  And it has, a lot.  Most of the OSR games I know and want to play have easier rules than the actual games from the 80's.

Still, OSR is a bit of a broad topic, so it isn't one thing or the other.  Its a grey scale.

Old School Reconquista.  We're taking it back!

Quote from: weirdguy564 on January 28, 2024, 09:24:47 AM
Old school D&D rules, easy to learn, but "fixed".

The big one is to use ascending armor class.  The old combat matrix was needlessly useless.   It was only done because of British Naval ship ratings.  A 1st class ship of the line was the best, biggest warship in the age of sail, so the term "1st class" was used to mean the best.  So AC-1 was the best, and mathematically the rules were forced to do work like that.

That can go.  And it has, a lot.  Most of the OSR games I know and want to play have easier rules than the actual games from the 80's.

Still, OSR is a bit of a broad topic, so it isn't one thing or the other.  Its a grey scale.

My group of high schoolers are playing a modified S&W with THAC0.  I tell them the armor class of the target, they subtract it from their THAC0 (which already has bonuses built in... we do that when they go up or get a new magic weapon).  They need to roll that number or higher on the d20.  Simple.  No one has complained or had any problem with it.  So, if modern teenagers can figure it out easily, I just don't see the issue...

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on January 28, 2024, 11:10:24 AM
Old School Reconquista.  We're taking it back!

LOL!   Kick WOTC out of Iberia!

I like Revival. It's come back to life again. That's far more poetic language than Rebirth in French. I don't want reincarnation, I want it to crawl out of the grave and cough and ask to use the shower, spitting bits of crushed gnawed coffin wood out of its teeth.