Does the term "OSR" just mean "D&D?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
It's worth mentioning that Mothership doesn't tag itself as OSR on DriveThru. When I played it, the game it most reminded me of was Unknown Armies.

For sure, I don't think the designers think of themselves as OSR either but I know some in OSR circles were twisting themselves into pretzels trying to claim it was 'OSR' as I think they were just embarrassed to find a game they liked outside of their circle so due to tribalism it had to be 'OSR.' As you noted Into the Odd causes similar issues I think.

When I see OSR types running into the same-old walls with D&D and starting to propose different systems for initiative, AC, HP or magic and other fairly core systems in D&D I just wonder why they can't bite the bullet and move to other or *gasp* new systems (that they could make as well). But there are those who advocate using D&D as the core system 'because everyone knows it.' Which I don't find a particularly convincing argument, in fact it suggests that they are reliant on their uncool Dad, 5e D&D, to actually recruit new players.
 
Last edited:
People have always been playing OD&D, AD&D, B/X and other older editions. What I think the greatest thing the OSR (more like the OGL) did was to make these older games evergreen again, in a sense. It put a spotlight on the games and showed that there was still a great deal of interest in these editions. Wizards likely would have never did reprints or released the PDFs of these games if the OSR had not picked up steam. I believe they clamped down on this when 4e was released and it turned out to be a disaster. The whole marketing for that edition was a mess, but I digress.
 
Baulderstone said:
While I like that many OSR designers are expanding outwards rather than boxing themselves in, I do find it funny how far from the original concept some games are. Electric Bastionland looks cool, but to me, it feels like something in the same vein as '90s games like Over the Edge. The OSR returned to the roots but its already cycled all the way through RPG history again.

I'd actually expect to see more of that, not less. A 21 year old writing their first RPG? They were 11 when Apocalypse World came out. That's an old game to them and Vampire the Masquerade is an antique. If you think back to that age, you didn't really differentiate between 5 years old and 20 years old when it came to whether something is "new" or not.

Voros said:
I love D&D but trying to make D&D versions of every genre is piss-poor game design in my opinion, was already tried and failed numerous times in the hobby (back when D&D first appeared, then the d20 fiasco, etc.). I like too many other games (CoC, Risus, etc.) to want to just play variations on D&D forever.

Done well, those are the bits of the OSR I'm actually still interested in. Apes Victorious is great, as is Esoteric Enterprises. What both of those have in common is using the D&D framework to build something new as far as setting is concerned. I'm kinda over the gonzo thing entirely. I'm sure there's still some potential there, but there seems to be a lot of retreading old ground.

I'm simply not interested in competently done retroclones like OSRIC or For Gold and Glory. It's why I find the whole OSR thing about how creativity is one of their main goals a bit self serving. Yes, there's some very creative stuff within. But there's at least an equal number of people who are doing the RPG equivalent of being in a bar covers band playing "Freebird" and "Stairway to Heaven".

I don't personally buy the idea of re-defining other old games or games supposedly 'inspired' by them (like Mothership) as OSR unless we're going to redefine it to 'games I like' which is pretty meaningless, although I guess most attempts at defining things too strictly are ultimately pretty boring and meaningless.

That one's pretty much a problem with the original definition and the insistence it stood for "old school revival" or "old school renaissance" rather than just calling it "D&D based games". It's mostly closer to the latter, but when you're claiming the former it's natural that other older games are going to start sneaking in.

Really I think we need three categories although I don't have a name for them.

Retroclones.

Games based on older games that use that as a springboard to do their own thing.

Games inspired by older game designs but not beholden to any specific RPG.
 
Was it that #DickDream "movement" that vaguely happened some time ago?
Come on. We both know the official name is *Dream so that you can have whatever kind of dream you want without the phallic imagery.
Oh yeah, that was funny. A group that totally loved the OSR but couldn't stand all those damned OSR fans starts their own nu-OSR and has a game jam that creates nothing that any OSR gamers had any interest in.
Weird that it didn't take off.
See, they say that they love the OSR, but everything they said led me to believe that they had no idea what the OSR actually was.
While I like that many OSR designers are expanding outwards rather than boxing themselves in, I do find it funny how far from the original concept some games are. Electric Bastionland looks cool, but to me, it feels like something in the same vein as '90s games like Over the Edge. The OSR returned to the roots but its already cycled all the way through RPG history again.
Maybe. I don't think it's that extreme, barring the occasional clueless rogue agent. And I'm not entirely sure where the line is. Like . . . I read Stars Without Number, for example, and it didn't feel super D&D to me. IIRC, system-wise it felt kind of like a hybrid of D&D and Traveller, leaning towards Traveller. So it's not exactly what I'd expect from the OSR, but I can understand why a lot of OSR people find it close enough to not split hairs. Not entirely sure what criteria they're using, but whatever. SWN is good. (I actually got SWN because I was looking for a game that could easily run something similar in tone and setting to the Dark Matter TV show. I didn't care what subcategory it fell into at all.)
That one's pretty much a problem with the original definition and the insistence it stood for "old school revival" or "old school renaissance" rather than just calling it "D&D based games". It's mostly closer to the latter, but when you're claiming the former it's natural that other older games are going to start sneaking in.
Didn't someone came up with the term for legal reasons? WotC has been heavy-handed with their trademarks in the past, and even if they're legally in the right I can understand why people wouldn't want to risk a costly legal battle. So yeah, pretty sure this is intended as a way to say "clone of/similar to/compatible with old D&D" without literally saying it. Not a perfect solution, sure, but there you go.
 
When you want to avoid a trademark strike you use “The World’s Greatest Roleplaying Game” or something similar. I’m surprised they haven’t tried to TM that yet.
 
Or you use a name that's both very different and instantly obviously a reference. If it's good enough for Tunnels and Trolls...
 
I just did a bunch of research on this recently for something. Backgammon has been around for at least 5000 years. Has Go beat by a couple millennia :smile:
I hope that just proves your point further.

Weiqi (Go) is probably about 5000 years old too. It's just that the oldest written reference to it (a passing remark of it ) is 2500 years old.
 
I think the OSR has gotten to the point where punk rock did a long time ago, it used to be the disruptive innovator but now it is the new orthodoxy and we need something new to come along and disrupt all its assumptions and groupthink.

Not that there won't be a lots of good-to-great OSR material long into the future but to think that the future of rpgs will just be 'D&D but different' isn't exactly inspiring in the long-run to me.

I love D&D but trying to make D&D versions of every genre is piss-poor game design in my opinion, was already tried and failed numerous times in the hobby (back when D&D first appeared, then the d20 fiasco, etc.). I like too many other games (CoC, Risus, etc.) to want to just play variations on D&D forever.

I don't personally buy the idea of re-defining other old games or games supposedly 'inspired' by them (like Mothership) as OSR unless we're going to redefine it to 'games I like' which is pretty meaningless, although I guess most attempts at defining things too strictly are ultimately pretty boring and meaningless.


At the risk of painting with a broad brush, my personal experience has been that fans of class / level based systems (D&D) are less willing to engage in non-class / level games than fans of other game types. So making Runequest D&D, Traveller D&D, Call of Cthuthu D&D makes sense from that point of view.

The older D&Ds also tended to be kind of broad based even when set if a specific location like Greyhawk. So something like Mazes & Minotaurs takes the basic OD&D system, but tweaks it to better fit into Greek myth, Lion & Dragon tweaks to better fit into a semi-historical Medieval Europe, Low Fantasy Gaming tweaks to create a darker and grittier setting. Others like Castles & Crusades or ACKS aims more for "improving" the rules but staying with a more generalized fantasy setting or in the case of ACKS using a core that can be modified to fit different settings.

At least in the US many players are first introduced to RPGs through D&D, so it provides something of a common point of reference. Even if D&D is not your preference it is "common tongue" so it is fairly easy to buy and modify a setting for "D&D" to fit the game of your choice because you probably have enough familiarity to know what the various technical terms mean without buying the rules (assuming you don't already own them).

"Not D&D" is a safe choice with a large potential customer base. D&D variants are probably the easiest games to find players for.
 
Or you use a name that's both very different and instantly obviously a reference. If it's good enough for Tunnels and Trolls...
That's a single game, not a whole category. Not the same thing.
 
When I see OSR types running into the same-old walls with D&D and starting to propose different systems for initiative, AC, HP or magic and other fairly core systems in D&D I just wonder why they can't bite the bullet and move to other or *gasp* new systems (that they could make as well). But there are those who advocate using D&D as the core system 'because everyone knows it.' Which I don't find a particularly convincing argument, in fact it suggests that they are reliant on their uncool Dad, 5e D&D, to actually recruit new players.
Even official D&D has been plagued by this problem. 3E used its marketing research to ask people what they wanted it to be, and in fulfilling everyone's wishlists, they lost the simplicity and speed of the game.

D&D is very gamey and abstract, and attempts to add complexity usually just make it even less realistic.
I'm simply not interested in competently done retroclones like OSRIC or For Gold and Glory. It's why I find the whole OSR thing about how creativity is one of their main goals a bit self serving. Yes, there's some very creative stuff within. But there's at least an equal number of people who are doing the RPG equivalent of being in a bar covers band playing "Freebird" and "Stairway to Heaven".

Of course, as your analogy to bands demonstrates, every category of entertainment has the same issue. Yes, most people in the OSR aren't breaking new creative ground, but you can say the same about any genre of any medium .

That one's pretty much a problem with the original definition and the insistence it stood for "old school revival" or "old school renaissance" rather than just calling it "D&D based games". It's mostly closer to the latter, but when you're claiming the former it's natural that other older games are going to start sneaking in.

The issue is that you can't call them D&D-based games on the cover. D&D is a trademark.
Maybe. I don't think it's that extreme, barring the occasional clueless rogue agent. And I'm not entirely sure where the line is. Like . . . I read Stars Without Number, for example, and it didn't feel super D&D to me. IIRC, system-wise it felt kind of like a hybrid of D&D and Traveller, leaning towards Traveller. So it's not exactly what I'd expect from the OSR, but I can understand why a lot of OSR people find it close enough to not split hairs. Not entirely sure what criteria they're using, but whatever. SWN is good. (I actually got SWN because I was looking for a game that could easily run something similar in tone and setting to the Dark Matter TV show. I didn't care what subcategory it fell into at all.)
SWN is squarely in the OSR as you can drop in D&D monsters (as aliens) and magic items (as alien artifacts) without any conversion issues. You can also rip out plenty of parts to use in D&D as well.
 
The issue is that you can't call them D&D-based games on the cover. D&D is a trademark.
That is absolutely not how trademarks work. If it were, you couldn't put on your generic acetaminophen "compare to Tylenol" or on your brick-like toys" compatible with Lego," but you certainly can do that. Cf. Mayfair's Role Aids line of the early 1980s flat-out stating the products were for D&D and the disclaimer "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is a trademark of TSR Hobbies, Inc. Use of the trademark NOT sanctioned by the holder."
 
Even official D&D has been plagued by this problem. 3E used its marketing research to ask people what they wanted it to be, and in fulfilling everyone's wishlists, they lost the simplicity and speed of the game.

I gave 3E a chance, I really wanted to like it. I found it failed me badly, it was like combining my worst aspects of AD&D and HERO or GURPS.
 
At the risk of painting with a broad brush, my personal experience has been that fans of class / level based systems (D&D) are less willing to engage in non-class / level games than fans of other game types. So making Runequest D&D, Traveller D&D, Call of Cthuthu D&D makes sense from that point of view.

The older D&Ds also tended to be kind of broad based even when set if a specific location like Greyhawk. So something like Mazes & Minotaurs takes the basic OD&D system, but tweaks it to better fit into Greek myth, Lion & Dragon tweaks to better fit into a semi-historical Medieval Europe, Low Fantasy Gaming tweaks to create a darker and grittier setting. Others like Castles & Crusades or ACKS aims more for "improving" the rules but staying with a more generalized fantasy setting or in the case of ACKS using a core that can be modified to fit different settings.

At least in the US many players are first introduced to RPGs through D&D, so it provides something of a common point of reference. Even if D&D is not your preference it is "common tongue" so it is fairly easy to buy and modify a setting for "D&D" to fit the game of your choice because you probably have enough familiarity to know what the various technical terms mean without buying the rules (assuming you don't already own them).

"Not D&D" is a safe choice with a large potential customer base. D&D variants are probably the easiest games to find players for.

I think D&D used for other genres is kinda short-term gain but long-term they've proven to have little staying power. It's telling that RQ and its derivatives like Mythras, CoC and Traveller are all played today whereas those D&D hybrids and d20 attempts have faded away.

Using D&D to do other fantasy variations is one thing but I think D&D is singularly unsuited to a Call of Cthulhu game for instance, as oppposed to fantasy with some Lovecraftian monsters (which was a thing in D&D going back to Night's Dark Terror).

I don't see any need for RQ D&D as RQ does RQ-style gritty combat and cult magic far better and D&D Traveller is also combining two ill-suited systems as SWN I think shows, the GM tools are excellent but the core rule system is mediocre imo.

But I'm of fhe opinion that the OSR has wasted a fair bit of its time claiming and then trying to make D&D 'gritty and lethal' when RQ and WFRP already accomplished that decades ago.
 
Last edited:
I'd actually expect to see more of that, not less. A 21 year old writing their first RPG? They were 11 when Apocalypse World came out. That's an old game to them and Vampire the Masquerade is an antique. If you think back to that age, you didn't really differentiate between 5 years old and 20 years old when it came to whether something is "new" or not.



Done well, those are the bits of the OSR I'm actually still interested in. Apes Victorious is great, as is Esoteric Enterprises. What both of those have in common is using the D&D framework to build something new as far as setting is concerned. I'm kinda over the gonzo thing entirely. I'm sure there's still some potential there, but there seems to be a lot of retreading old ground.

I'm simply not interested in competently done retroclones like OSRIC or For Gold and Glory. It's why I find the whole OSR thing about how creativity is one of their main goals a bit self serving. Yes, there's some very creative stuff within. But there's at least an equal number of people who are doing the RPG equivalent of being in a bar covers band playing "Freebird" and "Stairway to Heaven".



That one's pretty much a problem with the original definition and the insistence it stood for "old school revival" or "old school renaissance" rather than just calling it "D&D based games". It's mostly closer to the latter, but when you're claiming the former it's natural that other older games are going to start sneaking in.

Really I think we need three categories although I don't have a name for them.

Retroclones.

Games based on older games that use that as a springboard to do their own thing.

Games inspired by older game designs but not beholden to any specific RPG.
So "D20 retro", "retro-inspired" & "Old School, New Crunch":grin:?
I'd like to see that!
 
I think D&D used for other genres is kinda short-term gain but long-term they've proven to have little staying power. it telling that RQ and its derivatives like Mythras, CoC and Traveller are all played today whereas those D&D hybrids and d20 attempts have faded away.

Using D&D to do other fantasy variations is one thing but I think D&D is singularly unsuited to a Call of Cthulhu game for instance, as oppposed to fantasy with some Lovecraftian monsters (which was a thing in D&D going back to Night's Dark Terror).

I don't see any need for RQ D&D as RQ does RQ-style gritty combat and cult magic far better and D&D Traveller is also combining two ill-suited systems as SWN I think shows, the GM tools are excellent but the core rule system is mediocre imo.
Totally agree - with the addition that the non-combat system of SWN is fine, seeing as it's basically Traveller:tongue:. So it's only combat and chargen that are mediocre.
 
Totally agree - with the addition that the non-combat system of SWN is fine, seeing as it's basically Traveller:tongue:. So it's only combat and chargen that are mediocre.

Yeah sorry, that's what I meant as well, welding a Traveller skill system to D&D isn't exactly great design imo.
 
I think D&D used for other genres is kinda short-term gain but long-term they've proven to have little staying power. it telling that RQ and its derivatives like Mythras, CoC and Traveller are all played today whereas those D&D hybrids and d20 attempts have faded away.

Using D&D to do other fantasy variations is one thing but I think D&D is singularly unsuited to a Call of Cthulhu game for instance, as oppposed to fantasy with some Lovecraftian monsters (which was a thing in D&D going back to Night's Dark Terror).

I don't see any need for RQ D&D as RQ does RQ-style gritty combat and cult magic far better and D&D Traveller is also combining two ill-suited systems as SWN I think shows, the GM tools are excellent but the core rule system is mediocre imo.

But I'm of fhe opinion that the OSR has wasted a fair bit of its time claiming and then trying to make D&D 'gritty and lethal' when RQ and WFRP already accomplished that decades ago.

Preaching to the choir with me, D&D anything is mostly opportunistic, I have many systems I'd generally prefer to play.

I do think you are underestimating the popularity of some of the non-fantasy OSR / d20 games (although most I'm familiar with are 3E OGL based so not typically considered OSR) which I still see some discussion of from time to time. d20 Modern, Spycraft, Traveller T20, and Call of Cthulhu d20 were fairly well received and still seem to have some player base despite a total lack of support.
Like you I would have put Call of Cthulhu pretty low on the list of D&D compatible systems but the d20 CoC was actually pretty decent, much better than I would have ever imagined. I'd personally prefer the standard BRP based, but I would play the d20 version if that was being offered.

I have run into my fair share of players with the attitude that they will play anything as long as it is D&D and for those people they still have options. I run into the occassional "never D&Drs" but rarely run across gamers of other systems who won't give a new game a chance.
 
Unfortunately the "old" in OSR is always going to be a wishy washy concept. For some folks, "old" is anything other than the current edition of D&D, so we will see folks wanting to use OSR to look back to games of the 90s or the 2000s or the 2010s, either from the playing perspective or the marketing compatible content. And then the waters quickly become so muddled as to start to become useless.

Dude, I'm sitting right here. I got started in the early 90s, but didn't really have my own money to buy things until the late 90s-- so I may have technically started with AD&D First Edition, but my definition of "old school" is AD&D Second Edition and Player's Option, and Rolemaster Standard System and Palladium Fantasy Roleplaying, and Alternity.

Of course, the bigger problem is that when I was playing games from the Early Eighties during the Early Nineties, the "old school" that was my formative experiences in the RPG world was not the "old school" of the OSR-- they seem like they're all Knaves & Kobolds and Dungeoncrawling & Demons and a little bit Paladins & Princesses, while my early gaming experiences were so deeply rooted in the Galactic Dragons & Godwars style that I'm titling two of my separate Works in Progress after it.

I believe they clamped down on this when 4e was released and it turned out to be a disaster. The whole marketing for that edition was a mess, but I digress.

Never ceases to amaze me how, in the span of less than a decade, they went from inventing a whole cottage industry to be their unpaid marketing department to turning that whole cottage industry into their biggest/only competitors and spending millions of dollars encouraging their customers to take their business elsewhere.

Capitalism is a strange animal. You'd think "survival of the fittest" would mean that certain mistakes wouldn't get made, and certainly not more than once... but you see large, publicly traded corporations with professional executives and marketers making them over and over and over again.

Really I think we need three categories although I don't have a name for them.

Retroclones.

Games based on older games that use that as a springboard to do their own thing.

Games inspired by older game designs but not beholden to any specific RPG.

Even so, those lines are pretty blurry when several of the most popular RPGs from the Eighties and Nineties started out their life as either pretty blatant ripoffs of AD&D, or as third-party supplements for AD&D that got out of hand. Also when considering that several supposed "retroclones" are attempting to emulate multiple versions of "the same" game simultaneously-- as you see a lot of between Classic D&D, AD&D, and d20.

It isn't a purely academic distinction, given the hot mess I'm trying to make look like somebody designed it on purpose.

When you want to avoid a trademark strike you use “The World’s Greatest Roleplaying Game” or something similar. I’m surprised they haven’t tried to TM that yet.

I mean, I wouldn't put it past them... but this would be a hell of a mistake. Even when it is objectively, incontrovertibly true, getting all of your competitors to constantly refer to your product as the "world's greatest" or even "most popular" kind of your product is the kind of marketing you can't buy-- and man, don't the big corporations wish they could.

But I'm of fhe opinion that the OSR has wasted a fair bit of its time claiming and then trying to make D&D 'gritty and lethal' when RQ and WFRP already accomplished that decades ago.

It's not even that there are other games that already do this way better than D&D, or that D&D has always been particularly bad about doing this... it's that D&D has always been very obviously, very deliberately, and very obviously deliberately designed to be the opposite of this. Lots of fantasy games allow well-trained, well-equipped, and well-prepared adventurers to withstand a dragon's fearsome attacks and kill them... but D&D is fairly unique among fantasy roleplaying games in allowing a screaming, naked man to do so with his bare hands.
 
Last edited:
I gave 3E a chance, I really wanted to like it. I found it failed me badly, it was like combining my worst aspects of AD&D and HERO or GURPS.
As I mentioned earlier, I think that's because they were driven by opinion polling. The poll said that people wanted more mechanical complexity for PCs, so they did that. The poll said that people wanted monsters and PCs to work the same way, so they did that too. They didn't take a moment to think about how doing both those things made the GMs job so much harder. Not only did the bloated monster stats make building adventures much harder, just parsing monster stats when running a published adventure was a headache.

The game had a similar issue with both speeding up level progression while simultaneously giving PCs more mechanical bits at every level. My primary 3E group was mostly made up of first-time gamers that I worked with, and many of them began to get character-build fatigue. They also fell into a lot of the build traps baked into the game.

As for my experienced players, having new feats and prestige classes coming out every month left them with a constant feeling of buyer's remorse. "Damn! If I'd known about this prestige class two levels ago, I would have taken this feat instead!" I can see why drawing on M:tG deck building and combos seemed like a great on paper. The big difference is that with M:tG, you can make a new deck any time you want. With D&D, your character build is a long-term commitment. When M:tG brought out a new supplement, people could play with it right away. With D&D, all the new feats and classes were just taunting my build-conscious players.
 
Just want to point out that since the beginning many including myself limit the use of OSR in our actual marketing. Sure many, including myself, used it in discussion but not a lot of us actually stuck an OSR label or verbiage on our covers and adds. The primary reason for this is that within the world of classic D&D there are many variations. What I did with the Majestic Wilderlands is not the same as what Raggi did with Lamentations of the Flame Princess which is not the same as what Proctor did with Labyrinth and so on. So saying "Hey I'm OSR" was insufficient from the get go.

Prior to the advent of the DriveThruRPG the most significant use of OSR in marketing was a Lulu storefront labeled the Old School Renaissance. Lulus has/had? feature where a storefront could be setup that collected author listings so many of us in the early days submitted our lulu listings to that store. It eventually disappeared.

As for DriveThruRPG OSR category nobody bothers trying to police the metacatagory itself but there been periodic sweeps of OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry to get product that clearly don't belong bumped into another catagory.

In general I find the use of OSR useful in discussion rather having to type out the group of hobbyists involved in playing, publishing, and promoting classic editions of D&D. I also have used osr (all small letters) to refer to the larger renaissance in older games resulting from digital technology efficiency in allowing narrow niches to be viable.

In terms of what I do as a publisher or even a blogger I try to stick to specifics as much as possible. Because even in the first year after the release of Basic Fantasy and OSRIC threw open the floodgates, it was no possible to talk about the OSR as a single thing beyond it involves the use of the mechanics from classic editions of D&D.
 
But I'm of fhe opinion that the OSR has wasted a fair bit of its time claiming and then trying to make D&D 'gritty and lethal' when RQ and WFRP already accomplished that decades ago.
You need to play OD&D with just the 3 LBBs. The problem started with the Greyhawk supplement and grew from there. And it is basically summed as, the character get more options while the monsters remained like they were originally. Even with AD&D, the Monster Manual was more of a OD&D supplement than something honed to be used with the PHB. A true AD&D monster manual didn't appear until the Monster Manual II. However by thing Unearthed Arcana was in the picture ratcheting things up a notch.

OD&D with the 3 LBB with selected elements from the Greyhawk supplement is fine with the gritty department. With that setup the main thing to keep any eye out for is the abundance of magic items.

Magic-Users
However one thing to keep in mind that with Runequest and other RPGs is that magic is often on a personal scale. Magic spells tend enhance the effectiveness of individuals or a small group. In contrast for D&D with it origins in tabletop miniature wargaming. Magic is more expansive and capable of effecting battlefields like the classic fireball.

While that is a source of criticism, I view it as setting flavor. If you want to "tone" down magic then altered the D&D spell list to reflect one's thought on the power level of magic. That what the Runequest authors basically did when Perrin's rules were altered into its own system.

The one thing about a fantasy setting that is completely made up is how magic works. There is no real life counterpart that can be used as reference. You just have to make a decision about how magic works and go with it.
 
Baulderstone Baulderstone I know it was a while ago and you were tired but what was your impression of the grittiness and lethalness of the game I ran for using using my Majestic Wilderlands rules?
 
Come on. We both know the official name is *Dream so that you can have whatever kind of dream you want without the phallic imagery.

See, they say that they love the OSR, but everything they said led me to believe that they had no idea what the OSR actually was.
Seeing how the whole concept had nothing to do with gaming, and was all about proclaiming yourself separate from the imaginary Evil Other in the hobby, is that really a shock?

Likes, +1’s, and retweets don’t get much content created.
 
Baulderstone Baulderstone I know it was a while ago and you were tired but what was your impression of the grittiness and lethalness of the game I ran for using using my Majestic Wilderlands rules?
I really like the Majestic Wilderlands rules overall. They are gritty at low-level, but I like the way that PCs get increasing negative HP as they level.
 
but I like the way that PCs get increasing negative HP as they level.
Yeah that worked out rather well in the campaigns I ran.

So for those of you who don't know. What I do is following:

Hit Points
Hit points represent experience and resistance to physical injury. When a character is brought to 0 hit points or lower they fall prone and are unconscious. A character will die instantly if they are brought to -3 hit point or lower. This limit is lowered by -3 hit points per level until it is equal to the negative of the character’s constitution score. For example, if Zephrus Hammerguard has a 14 constitution he will be able to take up to -14 hits point of damage once he becomes 5th level. At 2nd level he can take up to -6 hit points, -9 at 3rd level, -12 at 4th level, and finally -14, which is equal to his constitution score, at 5th level.

When a character hit point total is reduced to negative, he will suffer 1 hit point per round of bleeding damage until he is stabilized by a successful First Aid (Int) ability roll.

The character remains unconscious until he is brought up to 1 hit point by healing magic, first aid, or natural healing.
 
So for those of you who don't know. What I do is following:
Not bad, I like the Constitution threshold. The only issue I have with this is the same one I have with many similar systems, which is that there's little-to-no room for stable incapacitation. I like to have a little buffer in there so you can be unconscious and stable in a range from 0 to -2, for instance.
 
Not bad, I like the Constitution threshold. The only issue I have with this is the same one I have with many similar systems, which is that there's little-to-no room for stable incapacitation. I like to have a little buffer in there so you can be unconscious and stable in a range from 0 to -2, for instance.
I decided when it came to hit point damage if you taken below zero you are bleeding out Which make first aid actually a thing. The problem of course is at low levels with my rules you have just have 0, -1, -2. So I played around with it and settled on what posted.

Then to account for better for the issues of unconsciousness. I implemented this.

Face Shot
The attacker may elect to try a face shot on a target without a great helm. The attack roll is at a disadvantage. The target makes an advantaged save to avoid falling unconscious. If the target is unaware or surprised the attack is normal. Targets that are five times the size of the attacker are not effected by head shots.

Head Shot
The attacker may elect to try a head shot on helmless target. The attack roll is at a disadvantage. The target makes a normal roll for his saving throw. If the target fails his saving throw, he falls unconscious. If the target is unaware or surprised the attack is normal. Targets that are five times the size of the attacker are not effected by head shots.

How I referee is that characters can try various things in combat with a to-hit roll. To things other than damage however the downside the target get a save. I will play around with giving advantage or disadvantage on the attack roll and advantage on the save.

I used to use a standard set of modifiers +4, +2, +0, -2, and -4. But then D&D 5e came out and people really responded well to how advantage disadvantage worked. The +4/-4 came from the modifier for trying to hit an invisible target. Because nothing can be harder than that right? :smile:
 
You need to play OD&D with just the 3 LBBs. The problem started with the Greyhawk supplement and grew from there. And it is basically summed as, the character get more options while the monsters remained like they were originally.
I just realized that I've never played OD&D where the Greyhawk supplement was in use (in its entirety):grin:! So what are the key elements that a potential Referee should be aware of?

However one thing to keep in mind that with Runequest and other RPGs is that magic is often on a personal scale. Magic spells tend enhance the effectiveness of individuals or a small group.
And that's how I like it, myself:thumbsup:! If you want epic, armies-smashing magic, make sure to make an epic ritual with exotic, unholy components brought from all over the world!

Or, you know, have your own army:shade:.

Which, amusingly, leads to more of an emphasis on the wargaming side:devil:.
 
I just realized that I've never played OD&D where the Greyhawk supplement was in use (in its entirety):grin:! So what are the key elements that a potential Referee should be aware of?

The Greyhawk supplement is where the system become recognizable as classic D&D.

*You get exceptional strength, and other benefits as a result of your Int, Wis, Dex, Con, and Cha.
Overly fussy, and boost the power curve just enough to make it feel off. I went with the a straight ability modifier system capped at +3 if you have an 18.

*Different dice for rolling hit points for different classes.
I don't like this as it mucks with the power curve just enough to make it feel off compared to the monsters. So I use 3 LBB 1d6 +/- x for my characters hit points.

* The Thief
OK, if you keep in mind that the norm prior to this that any character can sneak, climb walls, etc. I think it not easily reconciled and jettisoned this for my campaign favor of a burglar class which still does what the old thief but it layers on top of what other character can do. In short in my campaign. anybody can pick locks, burglars do it better.

* The Paladin which more like a benefit for Lawful Fighters with high Charisma then a class.
OK however I have distinct view of what is a paladin so made my own class

Different damage die for weapons along with the 3 LBBs being updated to use those dice as well.
Fine, keep as it

The Weapon vs Armor kill chart from Chainmail updated to work with the d20 to hit system of OD&D now it is Weapons vs AC.
While still a chart it is way less complicated because how AC works with Armor in OD&D. But still nobody likes so I replaced it with simpler modifiers in the description of the weapon. Along with the ability to things in lieu of damage but the target gets a save.

I recommend trying to use Greyhawk RAW and then picking and choosing what to keep. The only major problem area is the Thief and that only if what do you rule when somebody wants to move sliently in the 3 LBB versus now in Greyhawk where there is a thief has that percentage chance.

And that's how I like it, myself:thumbsup:!
It the same deal with GURPS Magic and now that I back playing D&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. I find I like D&D approach better with tweaks as shown in the spell list. In retrospect for me, GURPS, Runequest, magic is just never felt epic just pretty much utilitarian for the most part. Now Fantasy Hero was a horse of a different color.
 
The Greyhawk supplement is where the system become recognizable as classic D&D.
Thank you for your summary!
Also, I feel like the removal of weapons vs. armour charts is a missed opportunity. No grognard complains about those in Classic Traveller, I'd like to note:shade:!


It the same deal with GURPS Magic and now that I back playing D&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. I find I like D&D approach better with tweaks as shown in the spell list. In retrospect for me, GURPS, Runequest, magic is just never felt epic just pretty much utilitarian for the most part. Now Fantasy Hero was a horse of a different color.
That's a perk, not a bug in my book, and it's something I liked about GURPS back then:thumbsup:.
And yes, I know that opinions are bound to vary.
 
I'm still waiting on what the 'Renaissance' part of the term actually means. Are we talking mechanics? 'Feel' (Which to me is just nostalgia, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's just not for me.) Something else?

What part of it is a 'rebirth'? As a I stated in a different thread, D&D has 'gone back to the well' so many times, I'm not sure there ever was anything left behind in the first place.
 
As soon as OSR became an identity badge of a gamer instead of a game ("I am OSR!"), it was going to need to accommodate anything that anyone who wanted that identity needed to put within it in order to not be on the other side of the imaginary fence from something they like.
 
I'm still waiting on what the 'Renaissance' part of the term actually means. Are we talking mechanics? 'Feel' (Which to me is just nostalgia, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's just not for me.) Something else?

What part of it is a 'rebirth'? As a I stated in a different thread, D&D has 'gone back to the well' so many times, I'm not sure there ever was anything left behind in the first place.
It means whatever you think it means. Which is the point of what happened. With Basic Fantasy and OSRIC showing how it can be done, people took the classic editions and did with them what they thought best. For me that happened to be the rules in the Majestic Wilderlands building on top of Swords & Wizardry.

Prior to Basic Fantasy and OSRIC there little to nothing being done with classic D&D. You had Hackmaster 4e, you had Castle & Crusades, you had some adaptation of classic materials for the d20 system like with Nercomancer Game and Goodman Games. But little was being done with the original rules.

So if we look at dictionary we see for renaissance
a revival of or renewed interest in something

Seem to fit the definition
 
As soon as OSR became an identity badge of a gamer instead of a game ("I am OSR!"), it was going to need to accommodate anything that anyone who wanted that identity needed to put within it in order to not be on the other side of the imaginary fence from something they like.
Yes but because it was based on open content and the use of digital technology to distribute the content that "fence" didn't amount to much at any point.

In short it was easy for people to say "fuck off' and do their own thing if somebody became a dick about it.
 
Yes but because it was based on open content and the use of digital technology to distribute the content that "fence" didn't amount to much at any point.

In short it was easy for people to say "fuck off' and do their own thing if somebody became a dick about it.

Rob, your focus on open content is resulting in your supplying context not present. Open content can also be grouped and categorized. That's the imaginary "fence" I'm talking about. Not a fence of access.
 
As soon as OSR became an identity badge of a gamer instead of a game ("I am OSR!"), it was going to need to accommodate anything that anyone who wanted that identity needed to put within it in order to not be on the other side of the imaginary fence from something they like.

To extend my punk rock metaphor, punk 'died' the day it became an identity for groupies rather than just a loose description of rocknroll.

Hell the great Lester Bangs was already mocking the 'what is..' question by 1977 in this hilarious piece.

Or as the Silver Jews put it: "Punk rock died the day the first kid said 'Punk's Not Dead.'"
 
To extend my punk rock metaphor, punk 'died' the day it became an identity for groupies rather than just a loose description of rocknroll.

Hell the great Lester Bangs was already mocking the 'what is..' question by 1977 in this hilarious piece.

Or as the Silver Jews put it: "Punk rock died the day the first kid said 'Punk's Not Dead.'"

I don't think Punk is a very good analogy to gaming. When you have an anti-establishment message you basically fail the moment you become popular. That would be a terrible plan for a game company. :smile:
 
Rob, your focus on open content is resulting in your supplying context not present. Open content can also be grouped and categorized. That's the imaginary "fence" I'm talking about. Not a fence of access.
Then how is this

it was going to need to accommodate anything that anyone who wanted that identity needed to put within it in order to not be on the other side of the imaginary fence from something they like.

an issue at all. What are the problems here? with You brought it up so there must an issue.

The way I see it if a person "wants that identity" and happy with that choice there is no issue. The only issue I see is where they think they have to conform because there is no other option. Which is why I harp continually on open content and digital technology because they do have a choice. The two effectively allow an individual support any category even if it is a category of one within the time they have for a hobby. If that they want to do.
 
I don't think Punk is a very good analogy to gaming. When you have an anti-establishment message you basically fail the moment you become popular. That would be a terrible plan for a game company. :smile:

I don't consider the 'politics' of punk as central to its aesthetics as some. The Stooges (and the Pistols, Clash and the Velvets for that matter) were on a major label so I think that aspect of the music has been overemphasized.

To me the parallel of the OSR to punk rock is more about how punk rock was about revisiting elements of rock n' roll from the 50s (rockabilly, RnB for the NY bands) and 60s (garage rock, surf, psychedelia) and exploring the potential of those less explored byways.

Similarly the OSR (at its most coherent and constructive) was about revisiting older D&D and playstyles and seeing what could be gleaned from it for current play and design.

I've definitely seen some reactionary and 'too cool for WotC's Dad D&D' posturing on Twitter from the OSR though, just like the good ol' days of snob punk rockers!

 
Last edited:
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top