- Joined
- Apr 24, 2017
- Messages
- 15,297
- Reaction score
- 41,641
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't count myself as a subscriber to the OSR approach
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.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 Wikipedia offerswhat's the OSR approach?
Is the R renaissance or revival?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?
I think it depends if you see it as a movement or a brand. It definitely isn't what it what, whatever that was.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 and I taking humprous shots at each other about what is and isn't OSR.
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 it depends if you see it as a movement or a brand. It definitely isn't what it what, whatever that was.
Well, 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!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.
I don't think so either. Besides, if we use uppercase vs lowercase, I maintain that the D&D retroclones should get the lowercase!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.
Why is it the latter just because one person says it is? Fenris-77 saysit's a philosophy that applies across all old school games. Why is his opinion worth less than that of robertsconley?Well, 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!
Why should D&D count as OSR, but not Bushido? Or Boot Hill? Or Tunnels and Trolls?
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.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?
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.Why should D&D count as OSR, but not Bushido? Or Boot Hill? Or Tunnels and Trolls?
Why should D&D alone get new content? It's a weird thing that everyone latched on to one system.
Defensive, much?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.
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.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.
That doesn't get lost. That's the whole point. It's the punk rock, diy ethos applied to roleplaying game publishing.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.
Until you hit maximum Green Day.I imagine also like Punk, the further it moves away from it's original conception, the more it loses any meaning.
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.
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 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.
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.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.
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.When did OSRIC come out? That was when I first saw the OSR acronym.
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.
For me, punk started in New York in 1976, got adopted and improved in 1977 London. And was dead by 1979.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.
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.
Punk was thriving in the UK in 1976. It was on its way out by 1978.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.