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

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I haven't read the whole thread (sorry) but I will say that there are both Tunnels & Trolls players who embrace the perceived OSR approach and OSR oriented players that have discovered Tunnels & Trolls and pronounced it compatible and enjoyable.

I don't count myself as a subscriber to the OSR approach, but T&T definitely was born at the time when going into holes in the ground and using your skill and ingenuity to come back with treasure was the thing to do. T&T also has easily creatable (and therefore disposable) characters.

T&Ts ruleset is very flexible so is usable in a lot of different ways for a lot of different genres, and it's quite easy to turn the power/threat level up or down with it. I would say that T&T is definitely one of the games that gets discussion in the context of OSR.
 
I’m quite partial to a bit of old school gaming myself, when it is trying out an old game for how it still holds up. A lot of games still do. However, I find the ‘OSR’ brand, a lot of the time, is just an excuse for lackluster game design, to be honest. To be sure, I would say the same of some other games based on branded systems too.
 
T&Ts ruleset is very flexible so is usable in a lot of different ways for a lot of different genres, and it's quite easy to turn the power/threat level up or down with it. I would say that T&T is definitely one of the games that gets discussion in the context of OSR.
Well, no. T&T (and OD&D) can't really be part of the Old-school Renaissance, except insofar as marketing is concerned, because there is no Renaissance about it. It is old school, the same as when UT was created.
The OSR crowd finally noticing it exists & has indisputable advantages is just making me sigh. What did it take, 36 years or so:devil:?
 
what's the OSR approach?
Well Wikipedia offers

'The general ethos of OSR-style play emphasizes spontaneous rulings from the referee, or Game Master, over set rules found in a book. The idea is for the players to engage with the fantasy as much as possible, and have the referee arbitrate the outcomes of their specific actions in real time.[9] The idea of game balance is also de-emphasized in favor of a system which tests players skill and ingenuity in often strange or unfair situations. The players should expect to lose if they merely pit their numbers against the monsters, and should instead attempt to outwit or outmaneuver challenges placed in their way. Keeping maps comes highly recommended'

I am up for spontaneous rulings, and T&T certainly expects that given the flexible nature of the Saving Rolls system. I of course, being less spontaneous sought to provide some guidelines for interpreting how to adjudicate them (Dare to Daro , Trollszine 1).

As discussed in the balance thread, I tend to construct games which aim for PC parity, and where they are big damn heroes.

So in those respects I don't see myself as of the OSR school. But many people whose writings I enjoy do.
 
Well, no. T&T (and OD&D) can't really be part of the Old-school Renaissance, except insofar as marketing is concerned, because there is no Renaissance about it. It is old school, the same as when UT was created.
The OSR crowd finally noticing it exists & has indisputable advantages is just making me sigh. What did it take, 36 years or so:devil:?
Is the R renaissance or revival?

It can definitely be a revival if people discover or rediscover it.

T&T certainly is derivative at times of OD&D (6 stats generated by rolling 3d6, the same stats as D&D except Luck for Wisdom, default play mode - go into a tunnel and come out with treasure, having fought monsters). However it is also very different with
  • Universal resolution system of saving rolls/tests
  • Virtually unimitated combat system (though if you ever played the 70's Fighting Book series similar to that)
  • Level advancement by attribute advancement
  • Spell point system
  • Armour absorbs
  • Universal combat figure for monsters (Monster Rating)
 
Last edited:
I think there's a case to be made for the difference between OSR as in a revival of old school games and ideas. And The OSR, a brand that people use for reskinned, house ruled and generally personalised takes on a particular edition of D&D. Whichever one they like the look/feel of.
 
The phrase has grown to encompass more than just D&D retroclones. Not every agrees of course. I tend to think of the OSR more as a philosophy or approach than a rules set. An approach focused on exploration and delves that indexes skilled play and resource management. Again, this isn't how other people define it and that's where, for example, you get CRKrueger CRKrueger and I taking humprous shots at each other about what is and isn't OSR.
 
The phrase has grown to encompass more than just D&D retroclones. Not every agrees of course. I tend to think of the OSR more as a philosophy or approach than a rules set. An approach focused on exploration and delves that indexes skilled play and resource management. Again, this isn't how other people define it and that's where, for example, you get CRKrueger CRKrueger and I taking humprous shots at each other about what is and isn't OSR.
I think it depends if you see it as a movement or a brand. It definitely isn't what it what, whatever that was.
 
I think it depends if you see it as a movement or a brand. It definitely isn't what it what, whatever that was.
Like I said, I tend to see it as a philosophy or approach to play, either using ODD or B/X or whatever, or another rules set that emphasizes the same game experience. It's that second but where a lot of the disagreement lies.
 
I think there's a case to be made for the difference between OSR as in a revival of old school games and ideas. And The OSR, a brand that people use for reskinned, house ruled and generally personalised takes on a particular edition of D&D. Whichever one they like the look/feel of.
Well, robertsconley robertsconley already clarified that OSR is the latter. Thus my observation is that T&T doesn't fit there...because it's genuine old-school, not a revival:thumbsup:!
 
This was why there was an effort to use OSR for D&D retro-clones and osr for anything else. I don’t think it really works.
I don't think so either. Besides, if we use uppercase vs lowercase, I maintain that the D&D retroclones should get the lowercase:tongue:!
 
Well, robertsconley robertsconley already clarified that OSR is the latter. Thus my observation is that T&T doesn't fit there...because it's genuine old-school, not a revival:thumbsup:!
Why is it the latter just because one person says it is? Fenris-77 Fenris-77 saysit's a philosophy that applies across all old school games. Why is his opinion worth less than that of robertsconley robertsconley?

Why should D&D count as OSR, but not Bushido? Or Boot Hill? Or Tunnels and Trolls?
 
Why should D&D count as OSR, but not Bushido? Or Boot Hill? Or Tunnels and Trolls?


Well, Tunnels & Trolls is just a variation of D&D, so don't see any reason it doesn't count.

I don't know about Bushido or Boot Hill - I didn't get the impression they were D&D-based systems, but I've never read either.
 
I think the argument is: what makes old school D&D so special that it only gets called OSR? Is it because of the OGL?

I think it's just the 90% of people that care only about D&D vs the few of us playing other games. D&D has always been synonymous with RPG in the eyes of the majority. We're the outliers.

That said, I don't know of any OSR "authorities", or any single group in control of the word. Anyone can call a game OSR if they want, it's just a matter of if anyone else goes along with it.

I recall there were people trying to push Dungeonworld as OSR when it came out, and everyone in the OSR just ignored them.

I mean, rightly so, but that's really what it comes down to - if a game is embraced or ignored.
 
I think the argument is: what makes old school D&D so special that it only gets called OSR? Is it because of the OGL?
I tend to think, D&D started it off with the OGL. But the concept of an Old School Revival, or Renaissance if you like that one, should involve everyone.

Why should D&D alone get new content? It's a weird thing that everyone latched on to one system.
 
The term OSR was first used among those who played, promoted, and published for the classic editions. It was used because the acronym was fun in that it was own thing but called back to TSR. And from day one the folks who played, promoted, and published for classic editions got shit for using Old School as part of it.

As happened while not every old school game had open content nearly every old school game benefited from how things got made and distributed by the group who played, promoted, and published for the classic editions of D&D. And because hobbyists are not one note wonders, other games got roped into what the group who played, promoted, and published for the classic editions of D&D did. Whether it was "old school" or not.

What gets lost in the debates over the meaning and use of the OSR is the fact that what happened rests on a foundation of open content and digital accessible to everybody who has the time and interest. There is no dominant publisher that things are judge by. Just a kalidoscope of medium size to tiny publishers all marching to the beat of their own drummers. And this is a good thing for you, me, and the rest of the OSR.
 
Why should D&D count as OSR, but not Bushido? Or Boot Hill? Or Tunnels and Trolls?
Because that not how I and other used the term for 15 years. As shorthand for the group of hobbyist who play, promote, and publish for the classic editions of D&D. Not Bushido. Or Boot Hill. Or Tunnels and Trolls. Or any other old school games. Why? Because that not what the whole group is interested in. Now some of the group is interested in Bushido. Some are interested in Boot Hill. And some are interested in Tunnels and Trolls. So they get discussed and as far as copyright allows it material is created and shared. Every OSR blog, forum, and social media group I know of has content and comments on things other than the classic editions. But varys.

Now if you want to give me shit for daring calling the group involved in playing, promoting, and publishing for the classic edition the Old School Renaissance feel free to do so. Folks been given me and others shit using the old school for 15 years. Despite the fact that this group who dare take the term old school for themselves was the spearhead of a rise in interest of older editions and older RPGs that saw many of them return to print or digital distribution. That some OSR publishers even bought older games and returned them to print or distribution themselves.

But do feel free to continue to be critical.
 
Why should D&D alone get new content? It's a weird thing that everyone latched on to one system.

Instead of giving the folks interested in classic D&D shit. How about giving the publishers who refuse to release their older editions or games as open content some shit. Because every time it happened with other older RPGs like Traveller in the form of Cepheus or Runequest in the form of Legends. Fans jumped on it and started using it for their own ends.

If you going to fire off bullets of criticism make sure you have found the right target.

Also, you are free to use what out there to show the rest of us how we are doing it wrong. All you need is the time and the interest.
 
Instead of giving the folks interested in classic D&D shit. How about giving the publishers who refuse to release their older editions or games as open content some shit. Because every time it happened with other older RPGs like Traveller in the form of Cepheus or Runequest in the form of Legends. Fans jumped on it and started using it for their own ends.

If you going to fire off bullets of criticism make sure you have found the right target.

Also, you are free to use what out there to show the rest of us how we are doing it wrong. All you need is the time and the interest.
Defensive, much?

I ask a question and you gonon the attack. But that's fair enough, as you obviously feel a sense of ownership and some bitterness about something.

When did OSRIC come out? That was when I first saw the OSR acronym.
 
I tend to think, D&D started it off with the OGL. But the concept of an Old School Revival, or Renaissance if you like that one, should involve everyone.

Why should D&D alone get new content? It's a weird thing that everyone latched on to one system.
Further to what Rob has pointed out, it's not that anyone is preventing folks from supporting old games (IP licensing issues aside), more that the people writing things want to write D&D material rather than Boot Hill material (For example). If anyone wanted to write for those other games, nothing is stopping them.
 
What gets lost in the debates over the meaning and use of the OSR is the fact that what happened rests on a foundation of open content and digital accessible to everybody who has the time and interest. There is no dominant publisher that things are judge by. Just a kalidoscope of medium size to tiny publishers all marching to the beat of their own drummers. And this is a good thing for you, me, and the rest of the OSR.
That doesn't get lost. That's the whole point. It's the punk rock, diy ethos applied to roleplaying game publishing.

And just like punk, there's certain people who feel they started it, therefore they can define and constrain it. And others who follow the unwritten rules. And yet more who spend money on it.

But like punk, nobody owns it. The genie is out of the bottle.
 
The truth is that unless OSR is trademarked and defended, no one has any ownership of the meaning.

I acknowledge that the OSR movement is largely centered on D&D, in part because that was the first game family that included original games that had open content. Now that open content has been used to produce retro clones of other game lines. Some people got on the OSR bandwagon to produce supplemental material for the original games, others to publish their own set of house rules (perhaps tuned for a specific setting). With all of this activity, some people chose to go back to the original games and content, while others point out they never stopped playing the original games.

My feeling is that as a general term "old school renaissance/revival" easily encompasses all of this activity, whether centered on D&D or not. OSR as a "brand" maybe should just be material based on the open content license for D&D, but again, without a trademark, there's not much you can do about use of the term other than use your voice.

And it's messy, because there is some content that is based on the open license and D&D derived that probably doesn't feel remotely like "D&D" yet, because of the path taken to produce it would fit under the strict definition of OSR. Meanwhile, someone writing a new "D&D" module but does so in a way that doesn't depend on the open content license and isn't open content, doesn't count, even though when used with any of the well regarded OSR clones would drop right in.

It's also worth pointing out that while D&D 3.x is open content, earlier editions of D&D have never been released as open content. So how does that make D&D special in any way compared to any of the other original games? There are open content Traveller and RuneQuest clones and many others (of those that were recently named, I don't know if a Bushido clone has been made, but that's a pretty small niche and an edition of the original game IS available.
 
That's a great question. I'm not sure I even know, to be honest. I mean, is 4th Edition considered "OSR"?

But, for purposes of my question, I'd say any version of D&D proper. Hope that helps, but I doubt it does.

Made an edit which changed my answer significantly.

4e D&D is decidedly anti-OSR.

As to the original question, yes. More than just old-school D&D can be OSR. Any traditional RPG that harkens back to old-school aesthetics, play styles, and mechanical tropes would be considered OSR. However, not everyone agrees. So, prepare for trench warfare!

VS
 
It's also worth pointing out that while D&D 3.x is open content, earlier editions of D&D have never been released as open content.
This is a good point to make. The OSR wouldn’t have existed without 3rd edition. I don’t think they initially considered the OGL would be used to retroclone older editions. More likely they assumed people would make adventures/modules for third edition. Of course the floodgates had been opened and there was no going back.
 
The original concept of OSR as I used it was inclusive of pretty much all “old school” rpgs that were based more around exploration of a fictional campaign world than either story emulation or predictable character “deck-building,” and explicitly includes T&T and Boot Hill and Top Secret and Traveller and WFRP and DragonQuest and Rolemaster and MERP and FASA’s Star Trek and Doctor Who and all of the BRP games and Palladium Books games and everything FGU ever published. It might include TFT and Champions (neither of which I have first-hand experience with) but not GURPS or Hero System. Basically the rpg mainstream of the early-mid 80s.

The idea was interest in those games and in newer games that had the same style and approach to play (like KenzerCo’s Aces & Eights, which was published in 2007 but felt like something from 1982). If you make random rolls to create your character, if the world exists “de facto” and isn’t tailored to the PCs or their story, if the game mechanics are about creating that world and not about emulating the beats and conventions of stories or movies, if game balance is something that’s eyeballed (or flat out ignored) rather than precisely calculated, and you’re doing it in the 21st century, especially if you’re doing so in conscious defiance of then-contemporary design and play trends, then you’re OSR, at least as initially conceived.

I realize that’s not how the term ended up being used, and it pretty quickly became narrowed down to D&D and even more specifically to non-Advanced D&D (OD&D and BX alike), and then got turned into a marketing brand and a “movement,” but none of that’s my fault. I just wanted a revival in the style of play I enjoyed as a kid that fell out of fashion by the 90s and seemed to have all-but-disappeared by the mid-00s.
 
This is a good point to make. The OSR wouldn’t have existed without 3rd edition. I don’t think they initially considered the OGL would be used to retroclone older editions. More likely they assumed people would make adventures/modules for third edition. Of course the floodgates had been opened and there was no going back.
It's another offshoot of the WotC decision to make an OGL which has, in many ways, been the driving force of the hobby ever since, for good or ill.

In my view, the OGL/D20 thing did a number of things:

1) Establish a means for small companies to get a foothold on an established market, and grow.
2) Establish counter-cultural alternatives to an identifiable ‘mainstream’ of the hobby.

I’d say that the indie/narrative movement was one example of 2), but so was OSR.

As far as my perspective goes, the first game that moved to be an OSR game was Castles & Crusades - that is, a game designed to recreate a particular experience of an older game, based on earlier design features. In the case of C&C, the main feature was to buck the trend, incorporated into 3E for the first time, of using skill lists in the game - which were deemed as making the D&D game more complicated. C&C reverted back to making the six Ability scores the central mechanic of the game. I think this, in turn, had an impact on other game designs including later editions of D&D which at least pruned down the skill lists to much shorter lists and de-emphasised the ‘ranking’ accumulation/calculation.

Other OSR games that followed also generally look to remove complications - like elaborate personality or meta-game mechanics - which often makes them diametrically opposed to the game design choices of the indie/narrative movement who tend to build up those things.
 
Last edited:
When did OSRIC come out? That was when I first saw the OSR acronym.
OSRIC came out in 2006. The term Old School Renaissance was coined in 2005 and was used sparely until 2008 after the debut of the OSR storefront on Lulu and the appearance of the first logos. That when it become strong associated and used by folks publishing, promoting, and playing the classic editions.


Where the hell the Old School Renaissance come from?

The blog post in question from Dragonsfoot.

The populatity of none d20 systems is again growing with WFRP selling second only to WoTs D&D. CoC and GURPS have also seen a slight revival in their market share. Compare this to the decrease in sales of d20 material over the last year (although still high). Over production and over stock is leading many online stores to slash prices. An old school renaissance could be on the horizon. C&C is ahead of the game for the moment but this won't remain the case for long. Already Green Ronin are toying with the idea of going rules lite and have put True20 out to RPG publishers for settings an ideas.
 
I imagine also like Punk, the further it moves away from it's original conception, the more it loses any meaning.

Lester Bangs wrote a classic piece, available in Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung, mocking the meaingless of the term 'punk' at its height so I'm doubtful the term ever had a clear 'original conception.'

In fact I think the most likely original-use in rock was by Richard Meltzer in reference to 60s garage rock bands. So not what most people mean by its use today.

Just as with the OSR as soon as the term punk rock was coined it sparked endless debate on its meaning and what was or wasn't 'truly' punk.

So I've always distrusted narrow attempts to define music by genre and would extend that skepticism to most other creative endeavours, including rpgs.
 
Last edited:
Lester Bangs wrote a classic piece, available in Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung, mocking the meaingless of the term 'punk' at its height so I'm doubtful the term ever had a clear 'original conception.'

In fact I think the most likely original-use in rock was by Richard Meltzer in reference to 60s garage rock bands. So not what most people mean by its use today.

Just as with the OSR as soon as the term punk rock was coined it sparked endless debate on its meaning and what was or wasn't 'truly' punk.

So I've always distrusted narrow attempts to define music by genre and would extend that skepticism to most other creative endeavours, including rpgs.
For me, punk started in New York in 1976, got adopted and improved in 1977 London. And was dead by 1979.

Everything else is just kind of imitating those pioneers. And making far more money than they ever did.
 
That doesn't get lost. That's the whole point. It's the punk rock, diy ethos applied to roleplaying game publishing.

And just like punk, there's certain people who feel they started it, therefore they can define and constrain it. And others who follow the unwritten rules. And yet more who spend money on it.

But like punk, nobody owns it. The genie is out of the bottle.
It's also worth pointing out that while D&D 3.x is open content, earlier editions of D&D have never been released as open content. So how does that make D&D special in any way compared to any of the other original games? There are open content Traveller and RuneQuest clones and many others (of those that were recently named, I don't know if a Bushido clone has been made, but that's a pretty small niche and an edition of the original game IS available.

The problem is trade dress which part of the expression of a game system. In this case the specific body of terms used in D&D, Traveller, and Runequest. Ideas are not protected so something like Palladium Fantasy and Tunnels & Trolls are definitely fine although both has many obvious D&Dism in them. But when you take nearly everything from hit points, armor class, fighter, magic users, orcs, trolls and make a similar package and similar wording (but not a copy & paste) then you are way into the grey area of copyright law.

What D20 SRD did was release 95% of the terms as a package as open content. So while Wizards was not expecting OSRIC or Basic Fantasy they were expecting Mutants & Masterminds, True20 and other D20 related RPGs to made.

So what happened with Traveller is that with the permission of Marc Miller Quicklink released a D20 based system and open content as Traveller20. And then years later Mongoose released Mongoose Traveller 1e with open content. Between the two of them everything was there to make a Traveller edition clone. But for years it didn't get done because the Traveller hobby is was for a long just as much about the Third Imperium as a system. But Mongoose fostered and grew a third party market with their own original setting. Everybody was pretty happy with the setup until the change to Mongoose Traveller 2e and the use of the community content license on DriveThruRPG. Nobody with an original setting was willing to sign on and for whatever reason Mongoose didn't fix it. So finally there was a reason and incentive to make a Traveller clone and Cepheus was born.

Overall between Cepheus and the good job that Mongoose has done with Mongoose Traveller 2e the Traveller hobby is enjoying a second golden age.

Runequest has open content in the form of legend and Openquest is built on top of that. The main thing about Runequest that it has one good publisher, Chaosium with a beloved setting Glorantha. And one outstanding publisher, Design Mechanism, who publishes Mythras. Fans of Runequest have been a decent place for the past decade and both publisher will work with others. So there is not many OSR style independent publishers for the D100 system. It doesn't help that Chaosium is hostile to open content and the OGL. Not just hostile about it but stupidly hostile about it.

The problem with drawing an analogy with Punk is that one can make an original song that is considered Punk and enjoy it if it is good. With RPGs people want the freedom to play an actual song and make variations of that specific song. Folks been making system like D&D, like Traveller, like XXX since the dawn of the industry but nobody mistake those systems for the original and more often than not they are to compatible in important ways. With the OSR people want to play systems and use supplements that work with the original 'as is'.
 
For me, punk started in New York in 1976, got adopted and improved in 1977 London. And was dead by 1979.

Everything else is just kind of imitating those pioneers. And making far more money than they ever did.
Punk was thriving in the UK in 1976. It was on its way out by 1978.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top