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

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Out of curiosity, for those who are more famiar (or at all familiar, as it were) with the OSR, has anyone ever done away with Experience Points and had level progression based simply on game sessions?

I was playing with the idea of level progression based on the numerical value of the level x amount of sessions played - so you spend one game session as level 1, 2 game sessions as level 2, 3 game sessions as level 3, 4 as 4, etc. It works out to one game session a week taking a character through level 10 in one year

game 1 - level 1
game 2-3 - level 2
game 4-6 - level 3
game 7-10 - level 4
game 11-15 - level 5
game 16 - 21 - level 6
game 22 - 28 - level 7
game 29 - 36 - level 8
game 37 - 46 - level 9
game 47 - 56 - level 10
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, for those who are more famiar (or at all familiar, as it were) with the OSR, has anyone ever done away with Experience Points and had level progression based simply on game sessions?

I was playing with the idea of level progression based on the numerical value of the level x amount of sessions played - so you spend one game session as level 1, 2 game sessions as level 2, 3 game sessions as level 3, 4 as 4, etc. It works out to one game session a week taking a character through level 10 in one year

I'm no OSR expert, but I know Golden Heroes used a system like this.

Characters got "DUPs", which stood for Day Utility Phase, or some similar ungainly phrase.

Characters got DUPs for the passage of time. I think it was a handful a week, and for some reason, the game assumed players would meet once a week. So the passage of game time mirrored the passage of real time.

Sounds simple enough, but there were a bunch of other rules to it that made it very weird and clunky. I never used it if I could avoid it, but then I've never been a fan of Character advancement in supers RPGs.
 
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.

I do something similar, but with a flat -10 negative HP threshold for everyone and a Fort save or equivalent to self-stabilize. Higher level characters already get more HP, and by an exponential amount, so tying the threshold to level seems redundant and punitive to lower level characters who already get a pitiful amount of HP. Tying the threshold to CON sounds tempting, but characters with higher CON already get more HP per level, and those with low CON already get a HP penalty, so it becomes as redundant as tying it to level.

A flat -10 negative HP threshold is simple, easy to remember, doesn’t favor the characters who need it less, and requires no extra math.
 
with You brought it up so there must an issue.

If I bring it up there must be an issue? LOL

The thread asks a question. Can the OSR be more than D&D and should it be more than D&D. I made an observation that it was always destined to be more than D&D as soon as it became an identity, because people taking that identity want it to encompass whatever they like to play in addition to D&D.

I only play AD&D so it doesn't really matter to me. Is that OSR? Is it not? Who cares. What other people decide it is or is not has no bearing on my continuing to play it. I don't consider myself "OSR". because if I said I was, most people would presume I play a whole lot of games published in the last 10 years That I'm not conversant on at all. So it would just confuse people to use the label, and I'm not really inclined to label myself in any event.
 
For me the OSR was a means to an end. Basic and Old versions of D&D were long out of print and only available via illegal PDF and the 3rd edition opened a way up for everyone and their dog to knock out their own version of the game to keep it alive, appeal to the older and newer players and maybe make some money. Now there are so many versions of D&D knocking about it's kind of turned into shovelware. I know of Labyrinth Lord and Dark Dungeons but have run/played neither and the rest all seem to be variations on the same theme. When WOTC finally woke up and offered PDFs of the original stuff it seemed pretty pointless to play someone else' home brew version with inferior art and layout. If anything all those other versions of the game would serve only to splinter the userbase now.

It's lovely that someone knocked out their own version of the game and maybe even managed to sell a few but if I wanted D&D Basic now I can just play that rather than someones house ruled/tweaked version with stick man art.

If the 'OSR' is to have any meaning these days I'd like to see versions of games that aren't in print/available as PDF and likely to vanish forever unless someone knocks out a decent clone. By decent, some money spent on art and layout, a cover and some adventures/campaign material to support it.

A glaring example is DC Heroes and Blood of Heroes. Great that Pulsar games turned out a 'MEGs 3.5' version of the rules. Not so great that the first thing people comment on is how terrible the art is. Plus the legal limbo thing and whilst it was cheap to buy for a number of years even on Amazon it's now no longer for sale except at inflated collector prices. Illegal PDFs exist but there must be a way of making a legal version of the game (Mutants and Masterminds OGL?) without fearing Cease and Desist letters. They'll never be able to make a working fork in the gadgetry rules though.

Another example is the Marvel Universe RPG (diceless game) which suffered from poor writing and vague rules but there was *something* in there worth saving. Yet another Marvel game, Marvel Saga (this time with cards) is quite well liked by those who know about it but not available for anything resembling a sensible price. The Marvel license is a curse it seems... (and you can maybe tell Supers games are my thing).

I've turned out loads of my own games but never put them on the internet. I wrote my own version of D&D in 1981 with a gazillion classes and got my group to play it for a couple of years until Red Box BECMI turned up and that was that. It's always interesting to see someone else's take on something but most of it (including the stuff I've written for my group which covered all genres not just Fantasy) is a bunch of house rules and in the case of stuff I wrote as a 10 year old it has some charm. When I read it now (those bits that still exist anyway) it's mostly unplayable no art hand scribbled crap.

My point is that the OSR was a great thing but the reason for it existing has changed when WOTC brought back the original versions of the games in PDFs so it should change/shift focus away from D&D and bring life back to those games which are in danger of fading into obscurity.

In a way the OSR showed WOTC that there was still interest in the back catalogue and forced their hand to put it back out there in PDF and Print on Demand so mission accomplished.

So what's out there that could do still do with the OSR treatment?
 
For me, I think there are two distinct kinds of OSR games.

The first is "Old-School Rules" and the second is "Old-School Renaissance"

Old-School Rules is what most people think of when they hear the term OSR, which are games that are either retro-clones of TSR-era D&D or entirely new games using TSR-era D&D rules as a mechanical framework or foundation.

Basic D&D and OD&D are the most common basis for these games, even though OSRIC was based on AD&D 1E and was the first proper OSR game unless you count Castles & Crusades as OSR.

Old-School Rules was largely a response to D&D 4th Edition in the early days, and there's a clear cut-off point with D&D 3rd Edition since it was such a drastic departure mechanically.

For example, Pathfinder 1st Edition is ostensibly a retro-clone of 3.5 but it's not Old School Rules since it's not using TSR D&D as the framework for the rules.


On the other hand, Old-School Renaissance is a much more vague term and is more of a mindset and an ethos built around classic RPG's from the 70's and 80's and will probably be taking cues from the 90's and early 2000's in the coming years.

I'm not sure if we'll see anything from the mid-late 2000's pop up since that was largely seen as a low point for the hobby, but the 2010's might become part of the Old School Renaissance years from now.
 
For me, I think there are two distinct kinds of OSR games.
And for me, it's an unnecessary label that has at times been used to divide players into little camps. It's all D&D, and what matters is that you (the general you, the player, not anyone specific) are having fun.

Not, that I am against labels, quite the opposite, they're very useful. Red, Yellow, Pink, Blue, my name, your name, all of these are useful labels. But in my limited experience, OSR is one of those that isn't necessary. It doesn't matter if you like the simplicity of 5e of Roll a D20 for everything, rolling high. Or the extra complexity of the older editions where you rolled 2d8 or lower for skills, roll d20 the higher the better for combat, or under for Saving Throws. Does not matter, it's all D&D and it's all there for you and your friends to sit around and make up 'stories'. Even if that 'story' is "We raided Undermountain, killed like 130 separate species of Orc and looted their bodies. Good times!"
 
Out of curiosity, for those who are more famiar (or at all familiar, as it were) with the OSR, has anyone ever done away with Experience Points and had level progression based simply on game sessions?

I was playing with the idea of level progression based on the numerical value of the level x amount of sessions played - so you spend one game session as level 1, 2 game sessions as level 2, 3 game sessions as level 3, 4 as 4, etc. It works out to one game session a week taking a character through level 10 in one year

game 1 - level 1
game 2-3 - level 2
game 4-6 - level 3
game 7-10 - level 4
game 11-15 - level 5
game 16 - 21 - level 6
game 22 - 28 - level 7
game 29 - 36 - level 8
game 37 - 46 - level 9
game 47 - 56 - level 10
I do this kind of thing all the time. My players really don't know what XP are anymore, since we always level up at an important milestone (completion of a quest, clear a level of a dungeon, that kind of thing).

(1) TSR's old SAGA system for Dragonlance did something like this. I think they used mission milestones instead of linking it to actual game sessions.

(2) The current 5E Adventurer's League rules read something like this as well. They give credit for number of hours played, and certain numbers of hours result in a level-up. As most AL adventures are designed to be four hours in length, that tends to translate to a level-up after a standard number of game sessions.
 
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.

I think what we're looking at here is the stage of the OSR that only just seems to be really arriving; the diversification stage.

Classic punk was different to oi was different to art school punk was different to anarchopunk.

And that's without getting into the more distant cousins like new romantic.

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.

That's truer of American punk. I've made this point on here before, but the biggest difference between American and British punk is that the former were clearly in a specific rock and roll tradition, where the Brits were a lot more "year zero" about it. (To a silly level sometimes, where Joe Strummers' pub rock past was carefully airbrushed out of punk history)

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

That one's as old as the hills. In RPGs, it probably starts with the Runequest snobs talking about how unrealistic D&D is.
 
As I have said on occasion, I am irrationally indifferent to the OSR. Once upon a time I was a Traveller fanboy and can remember having these sort of debates about it - maybe 20 or 30 years ago. I sort of gave up on it, or maybe lost interest, and I was never a D&D fanboy to that extent in the first place.

I think OSR is of those fuzzy terms like 'Rules Lite'. It doesn't have an agreed upon - oftentimes even terribly useful - meaning, although many folks have some ideas of what they consider to be OSRAs some folks have actually made money on OSR, it's gotten itself to be politicised and generated many debates of greater or lesser civility in online forums.

On occasion, I have been known to propose meanings based on utility in an attempt to anchor discussions. Of course, nobody ever agrees on the meanings. Nevertheless, here it goes.

Rules lite: A rules lite system can be picked up on-the-fly by someone just turning up to the table without any prior preparation. That is, it is simple enough for someone to figure out how to generate a character in a few minutes and start playing. To meet that definition, it should be possible to explain character generation and the basic mechanics in a few pages. This makes for a definition that is based on a capability of the system.

OSR: A D20-based D&D retroclone or similar system that can support published adventures written for other 'OSR' systems, or early versions of OD&D with little or no modification. A player familiar with one OSR system should be able to transfer assumptions and adapt to another OSR system with minimal effort, and modules published for OSR systems should be fairly generic or easily ported between systems of this type. This is also a definition based on the capabilities of the system.

Some people will disagree with these definitions to a greater or lesser extent, and the definitions place some value judgements on what it means to fit in that category and why we care. Some may not agree that the capabilities are what they actually want of the system. However, these are definitions that have some more-or-less concrete criteria - how it can be used or how other publications can be used with it.

In saying this I'm implying that I consider OSR to be largely D&D retroclones that are somewhat compatible with each other, which is not a terribly nuanced definition, nor is it one everybody will agree with. But, it's sorta kinda useful and it's a starting point - more importantly one that makes the underlying Weltanschauung explicit. I've just explained what I might expect of an OSR system and - to a greater or lesser extent - why I might care.

In order to define OSR, it might help to define why you care about the OSR in the first place and what you want out of it. Is it about tinkering up your perfect set of house rules for D&D? Is it something about interchangeability of the IP? Is it something about the style of play encouraged by the systems? Is it just nostalgia?

Of course, I've just asked folks to agree on why they care about the OSR, or at least form camps. However, in order to answer 'What is OSR?' you should really have a handle on what you want it to be and why, and perhaps bring these underlying assumptions into the discussion.

In answer to OP - by my definition basically no, as the definition is not philosophical in nature. If you regard OSR as some sort of underlying philosophy or mindset then you could branch out. Is Cepheus OSR? Is Mythras? Is Zweihander?

TL;DR: In order to define what the OSR is, it might help to have some idea of what one actually wants to do with OSR systems and why.
 
Last edited:
That one's as old as the hills. In RPGs, it probably starts with the Runequest snobs talking about how unrealistic D&D is.
"Oh, you just picked up Dungeons & Dragons? I was playing that with Arneson before it was published. I guess it's still cool, but I don't think anything can recapture the magic of those early sessions. You really had to be there."
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, for those who are more famiar (or at all familiar, as it were) with the OSR, has anyone ever done away with Experience Points and had level progression based simply on game sessions?

I was playing with the idea of level progression based on the numerical value of the level x amount of sessions played - so you spend one game session as level 1, 2 game sessions as level 2, 3 game sessions as level 3, 4 as 4, etc. It works out to one game session a week taking a character through level 10 in one year

game 1 - level 1
game 2-3 - level 2
game 4-6 - level 3
game 7-10 - level 4
game 11-15 - level 5
game 16 - 21 - level 6
game 22 - 28 - level 7
game 29 - 36 - level 8
game 37 - 46 - level 9
game 47 - 56 - level 10

This is pretty much how I run DCC. You hit level 1 after surviving the funnel, then each level requires your level in adventures (this assuming I running modules) to progress. And if you're coming from behind, a new character joining a higher level group, I'll just level them after each adventure until they catch up.
 
I think about this a lot. With the growing number of non-D&D retro-clones out now, is the OSR expanding, in a meaningful way, beyond its D&D roots?
Gamers have been discovering (or re-discovering) the joys of other games for years now, and cloning or adapting them. But, can these other systems gain significant traction? And if they can, what does that mean for the OSR, and for gaming in general?

Interesting topic. :smile:

I'm one of those people that never really associated rpgs solely with D&D. Probably because I'm old, and while I started out with D&D basic, I also played a myriad of other games too. Like, Dragon Warriors, CoC, Traveler, RQ, Twilight 2000 and WFRP1e, etc. And it didn't take long before D&D took a back seat to WFRP1e. If anything, D&D started to be looked down upn for because of its power gaming and level system.

But I'm still astounded when people say that D&D is the only game they've played, or the only game they will ever play. :sad: So decoupling RPGs from D&D would be a great thing for people like that. And would make the hobby a better place for gamers and designers (imo).

That said, I think the whole OSR thing had been phenomenal. Some of the games that are being made under that umbrella are fantastic. So, ironically by being somewhat constrained by the OGL people have had to become very innovative (like BtW).

For me, the definition of the OSR is based around the original D&D mechanics (but that might not be everyone else's definition, however). So when people say WFRP, Dragon Warriors, or Traveler is an OSR game, I don't think it is technically. I would see them as 'old school games' i stead. Or as Venger would say, 'Old School Flavour'.

A lot of folks on drivthru are of course are using the term OSR as it will help sell products. Despite some having very little to do with the term or concept.

While the OSR and Old School Games certainly share commonalities. I personally still see them as different entities. But YMMV. :smile:
 
Speaking entirely for myself...

I'm sure I've used OSR a few times as a catch all term for a retro remake RPG in the style of 70s/80s games, regardless of whether it's D&D related or not. But when it gets right down to it, I identify OSR as a shorthand for 70s/80s D&D clone. I've also skipped over game listings I've seen specifically because they are OSR, because of my perception that they're just going to be D&D clone material.

Wasn't "OSR" specifically dreamed up as a generic brand name for D&D clones in the first place? I seem to recall that being the case, as well as some people dreaming up a logo to use on such D&D clone products.

So from where I sit, OSR isn't very useful as a brand label for other retro-remake systems. It has a strong connotation. So to my mind it's better to just call other game remakes and reimaginings to be "RPG retrogames" or something.
 
Speaking entirely for myself...

I'm sure I've used OSR a few times as a catch all term for a retro remake RPG in the style of 70s/80s games, regardless of whether it's D&D related or not. But when it gets right down to it, I identify OSR as a shorthand for 70s/80s D&D clone. I've also skipped over game listings I've seen specifically because they are OSR, because of my perception that they're just going to be D&D clone material.

Wasn't "OSR" specifically dreamed up as a generic brand name for D&D clones in the first place? I seem to recall that being the case, as well as some people dreaming up a logo to use on such D&D clone products.

So from where I sit, OSR isn't very useful as a brand label for other retro-remake systems. It has a strong connotation. So to my mind it's better to just call other game remakes and reimaginings to be "RPG retrogames" or something.
I kind of feel it became a brand, even though it started out as something a bit more loose, rough and ready even.

Certainly the retroclone thing was where I noticed the idea of the OSR. That and the manifesto that Finch's Primer became. Or was written as. I couldn't say what it was intended as. Just that we noticed that and thought, "This is how we play anyway."

The game that really stands out for me is GORE. Partly because it mixes and matches two very different systems. Partly because it has a sense of fun about it. Which for me, was (and still is sometimes) a big part of what a movement should be all about. But then, I never really stopped playing old school style. And never took new school games for a proper test drive.
 
I'm just getting my feet wet with the OSR, and I still have no idea what actually defines it. :hmmm:

My interpretation is game systems based on original and advanced D&D, mechanically. Thematically, I've no idea.

If the OSR is rooted in OD&D and Advanced, I don't see why it couldn't spread to encompass other games not based on D&D. But I also don't know what would make them OSR, as I've yet to find a consistent definition of that term outside of D&D mechanics.
 
I think about this a lot. With the growing number of non-D&D retro-clones out now, is the OSR expanding, in a meaningful way, beyond its D&D roots? Does it need to?

D&D's popularity has waxed and waned over the years. And while the current amount enthusiasm and visibility it has garnered is nice, it remains to be seen how long it will last.

Would it be good for the hobby as a whole to be de-coupled from D&D, at least to the extent that awareness of different games, systems and concepts becomes more well known? How long can a hobby continue to enjoy popularity that is largely focused on a single game?

Gamers have been discovering (or re-discovering) the joys of other games for years now, and cloning or adapting them. But, can these other systems gain significant traction? And if they can, what does that mean for the OSR, and for gaming in general?
This is the definition of OSR I tend to go with :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_School_Revival

So it's not just D&D, although for a "movement" that was begun by people seeking to produce clones of D&D, it would seem a little disrespectful in my opinion not to acknowledge that or to consciously try and distance oneself as though the idea of a connection to D&D is somehow offensive.
 
I think what we're looking at here is the stage of the OSR that only just seems to be really arriving; the diversification stage.

Classic punk was different to oi was different to art school punk was different to anarchopunk.

And that's without getting into the more distant cousins like new romantic.



That's truer of American punk. I've made this point on here before, but the biggest difference between American and British punk is that the former were clearly in a specific rock and roll tradition, where the Brits were a lot more "year zero" about it. (To a silly level sometimes, where Joe Strummers' pub rock past was carefully airbrushed out of punk history)



That one's as old as the hills. In RPGs, it probably starts with the Runequest snobs talking about how unrealistic D&D is.

To go OT about music. Totally agree but I also agree with the somewhat controversial opinion of Joe Carducci that the 'year zero' nonsense (wherein some claim that Wire isn't even a rock band) led to the petering out of the English (less so on the cultural periphery) punk rock scene.

To me by the late 80s/early 90s I agree with what John Peel said at the time that most of the energy and creativity in the UK was going into electronic music moreso than rock n' roll (and yeah I'm not a fan of the Brit Pop bands).

But yeah you nailed it with the comment on diversification of punk rock: that's how we get industrial, disco-punk, noise rock, grind, synth pop and I embrace those range of sounds rather than worrying about policing genre lines.

To bring that back to the OSR, I think it has inspired a lot of young designers and some/many are starting to move away from strict D&D mechanics (e.g. Troika! uses FF as its base) which is a good thing not something to be criticized. Sure they can be arrogant and act like they just discovered 'this thing, man' but that's been true of young people forever.

At the same time I've seen Humza Kazmi acknowledge the influnece of RQ and WFRP on Hydra Cooperative's designers and the designers of BtW has acknowledged the influence of PbtA on that game's design so there are those aware of other games and purposefully drawing on them without apology.
 
Last edited:
I only play AD&D so it doesn't really matter to me. Is that OSR? Is it not? Who cares. What other people decide it is or is not has no bearing on my continuing to play it. I don't consider myself "OSR". because if I said I was, most people would presume I play a whole lot of games published in the last 10 years That I'm not conversant on at all. So it would just confuse people to use the label, and I'm not really inclined to label myself in any event.
Fair enough, nobody should feel they have to use a label they don't want to use.

However it doesn't clarify anything as the common usage of OSR encompasses all those who play, promote, or publish for classic editions 'as written'. So one winds up having to explain things anyway.
 
And for me, it's an unnecessary label that has at times been used to divide players into little camps. It's all D&D, and what matters is that you (the general you, the player, not anyone specific) are having fun.
I think it will always matter to some what edition of D&D they are playing that it is not all "just" D&D.

The nice thing about how it currently works a person can be as narrow or ecumenical as they want to be.
 
To me by the late 80s/early 90s I agree with what John Peel said at the time that most of the energy and creativity in the UK was going into electronic music moreso than rock n' roll (and yeah I'm not a fan of the Brit Pop bands).
I do enjoy a lot of Britpop, but there's no question that something special was happening with British electronic music in the 90's.
 
I think it will always matter to some what edition of D&D they are playing that it is not all "just" D&D.

The nice thing about how it currently works a person can be as narrow or ecumenical as they want to be.
I don't mind people preferring a specific edition or spinoff, it's when they use it as a weapon to push people into specific groups simply to denigrate them via their play style or other some such garbage. Live and let live, I say. Like whatcha like, but let others do the same.
 
I think the big problem is the term gets blurry because of all the various factors attempting to evolve the term to what they need or want it to be. When OSR was simple about clones or modules/adventures/sourcebooks being compatible with older AD&D editions, it served a much more concrete descriptive purpose and could be used to define what a product is (like an OSR category in a store).

However, as people use it as the definition of a creative ethos or ideal, it starts to get murky--it's where you start seeing people argue over what is and isn't OSR, or expanding it to define other games that aren't D&D based, where it starts becoming less useful, and leads to more confusion, as well as divisive discussion.
 
I think the big problem is the term gets blurry because of all the various factors attempting to evolve the term to what they need or want it to be. When OSR was simple about clones or modules/adventures/sourcebooks being compatible with older AD&D editions, it served a much more concrete descriptive purpose and could be used to define what a product is (like an OSR category in a store).

However, as people use it as the definition of a creative ethos or ideal, it starts to get murky--it's where you start seeing people argue over what is and isn't OSR, or expanding it to define other games that aren't D&D based, where it starts becoming less useful, and leads to more confusion, as well as divisive discussion.

Agree, as a tag to let you know the rules are similar to others grouped under OSR it is useful.

As a movement to reclaim "old school" gaming I don't even know what that means. I've been playing RPGs since the summer of 1978 and I have no idea what makes "Old school" gaming any different than the other marketing speak. I see people throwing out terms like "modern" and "cutting edge" often describing stuff I saw in games of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Everything old is new again when you don't know your history.
 
Fair enough, nobody should feel they have to use a label they don't want to use.

However it doesn't clarify anything as the common usage of OSR encompasses all those who play, promote, or publish for classic editions 'as written'. So one winds up having to explain things anyway.

That's the thing though - you really don't. If I say I'm running AD&D 1E, or that something I wrote is for AD&D 1E - everyone knows exactly what that is, and I don't have to explain anything.

If the hypothetical ever came to pass where someone told me they liked OSR games and asked me what I played, and I said AD&D 1E, and they needed me to explain what that was....that would be a defining moment I suppose, but it wouldn't require additional explanation from myself to them.
 
Agree, as a tag to let you know the rules are similar to others grouped under OSR it is useful.

As a movement to reclaim "old school" gaming I don't even know what that means. I've been playing RPGs since the summer of 1978 and I have no idea what makes "Old school" gaming any different than the other marketing speak. I see people throwing out terms like "modern" and "cutting edge" often describing stuff I saw in games of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Everything old is new again when you don't know your history.
I started in the mid to late 80's (My memory sucks...), got my first book in 86? It was the Oriental Adventures shortly after it came out, haphazardly ran a few games of that, then got 2e in 1989, about 31 years ago? And apparently, I ain't old school enough.
 
So what's out there that could do still do with the OSR treatment?
I know it's from the '90s, but I want Tribe8 back already, dammit! If it takes slapping the OSR label on it to make it happen, so be it.
Rules lite: A rules lite system can be picked up on-the-fly by someone just turning up to the table without any prior preparation. That is, it is simple enough for someone to figure out how to generate a character in a few minutes and start playing. To meet that definition, it should be possible to explain character generation and the basic mechanics in a few pages. This makes for a definition that is based on a capability of the system.
I've been in enough convention one-shots that, to me, this definition covers pretty much everything from RISUS and QAGS to Pathfinder and even freaking GURPS. :hehe: I've also played some really weird stuff and we still got going full speed w/in 10 to 15 minutes. If it's Pathfinder or higher levels of complexity, they hand out pregens and spend a couple minutes telling us about the various things on our sheet and I guess the explanations have been good because the games all went smoothly.
 
Am I the only one who notes that the Ne'er Do Well has requirement of a 9 in Dex, but not Cha, and yet is based off Cha?

So it's a pared down Rogue, too.
 
You know, one of the things I always liked about Star Fontiers is that every alien race's special ability was always tied to their weakest stats. This allowed aliens to have superpowers, while still making baseline humans always a viable choice.
 
Am I the only one who notes that the Ne'er Do Well has requirement of a 9 in Dex, but not Cha, and yet is based off Cha?

So it's a pared down Rogue, too.
Yes, because I didn't care enough to actually read the write ups. I was too busy wondering why someone would play clothes made by a blacksmith
 
Yes, because I didn't care enough to actually read the write ups. I was too busy wondering why someone would play clothes made by a blacksmith
Fair enough. Personally, I read them, and although they're mostly silly, the Ne'er Do Well stood out to me.
 
To bring that back to the OSR, I think it has inspired a lot of young designers and some/many are starting to move away from strict D&D mechanics (e.g. Troika! uses FF as its base) which is a good thing not something to be criticized. Sure they can be arrogant and act like they just discovered 'this thing, man' but that's been true of young people forever.
Yeah, let's not berate anyone for getting excited, let's be happy we have someone new to be excited with!

A glaring example is DC Heroes and Blood of Heroes. Great that Pulsar games turned out a 'MEGs 3.5' version of the rules. Not so great that the first thing people comment on is how terrible the art is. Plus the legal limbo thing and whilst it was cheap to buy for a number of years even on Amazon it's now no longer for sale except at inflated collector prices. Illegal PDFs exist but there must be a way of making a legal version of the game (Mutants and Masterminds OGL?) without fearing Cease and Desist letters. They'll never be able to make a working fork in the gadgetry rules though.
It's really frustrating. A friend of mine is starting up a DC Heroes campaign soon, so I tried to get a copy of the rules, but my options are...
* Overpay on the secondhand market, so my money goes to speculators
* Grab an illegal PDF and maybe print it myself
...and in neither case does my money go to anyone with an actual interest in the game and keeping it alive.
 
Last edited:
I know it's from the '90s, but I want Tribe8 back already, dammit! If it takes slapping the OSR label on it to make it happen, so be it.
The Cepheus Engine would be a much better fit for both Tribe 8 and Sky realms of Jorune, IMO.
 
The Cepheus Engine would be a much better fit for both Tribe 8 and Sky realms of Jorune, IMO.

That's a mighty tall order - Tribe 8 is easily one of the top 5 RPG game systems that I've ever encountered. What is the Cepheus Engine? I know I heard the name, but no idea what it's from.
 
That, uh...seems very unlikely to be better than Tribe 8's system

Not knowing anything about Tribe 8, I couldn't say personally. I do know some publishers have done some interesting things with it. There's a pretty decent supplement for super power construction that's pretty well done, and there is at least 2 - 3 magic systems
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top