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

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I don't think so. You'll see influences, but the BOSR seems to have largely lost interest in straight retroclones.

(It's notable that Zweihander is by an American I think. The Retroclone movement seems to be a lot bigger in the US).
I'm not sure. I will point out that Old School Essentials, the most popular retroclone at the moment, is made by a Brit who lives in Germany.
 
I seem to remember you elucidating on the merits of having common mechanics, so that if one wanted to play a game in the OSR family, one could just mix and match to one's heart's content, pulling, say, wizards from your game, fighters from game X, and running them through an adventure made for Swords and Wizardry...

Can't find a quote, but I suspect you remember stating that. But if OSR is about a playstyle, and not mechanics, that can't happen, right:thumbsup:?
Remember I consider OSR a shorthand for the group who plays, promotes, and publishes for the classic editions of D&D. So being able to just mix and match is a side benefit of that focus on a particular range of systems for that group.

Other old school system could reap the same benefits as well. Cepheus does just that for Traveller. Now there is a family of related Cepheus RPGs that Traveller fans can mix and match with it.

Even if one defines the OSR to encompass both then you still have two broad "eco-systems" that hobbyists can mix and match within. If you expand OSR to include say Dungeon World then you have another family of games (PbtA) to mix and match with.

So then what about Stars without Numbers and White Star? They share the same spirit as Traveller right? Well yes but the question to ask in these cases is it easier to port material from Traveller or easier to port from another system using classic editions mechanics. And how easy it is to use material between the two. In general I have found stuff like starships, world gen, and campaign stuff to be mostly system agnostic while characters, creatures, and tech with stat block not so easily adapted.

The test is not an existence of a label, the test is observing what folk actually do with the material. The label to me is an after the fact designation. As result to me what happening with Cepheus is pretty much the same thing that happened with the retro-clones. While with Legends and other D100s system that hasn't been the case yet. But I think it will be and it will occur when Design Mechanism or Chaosium falters in some way.
 
Last edited:
And if some folks want to take the look back to the early days of gaming, play style or mechanics, and incorporate ideas from those into modern games, that's cool too. Torchbearer is a very interesting game, definitely not OSR mechanically, but clearly inspired by the play of Basic D&D by the Burning Wheel Headquarters folks. I think that's cool. I think it's a spin off from the OSR.
The things to keep in mind that unlike most RPG systems, anybody if they have the time or interest can use the material for whatever project they have in mind either as a whole or in part. There is literally nobody that can say no like a IP holder provided everything else that added to the project is author's own work or something they have the rights too. With the low cost of digital technology it doesn't take much investment other than time to get going either.

As a result it about everything and nothing in particular. You can only say what interests X person or Y group. Which is why I don't go any further than saying it about a group of folks playing, publishing, and promoting the classic editions. With the observation that other things get roped in due to individual interest. (Like the Pacesetter series of RPGs).
 
Is there an approved/generally-accepted name for new games that aren't rehashed or cloned versions of old games but that capture an old-school spirit and playstyle, as in including random or quasi-random elements in character creation, rules that are focused more on game-world physics than story-structure emulation (preferably including optional modular complexity and embedded situational minigames), focus on sandboxy setting elements and locations with adventure-potential over canned plots (or procedurally-generated non-plots), and so on? Are there such new games that aren't clones or rehashes of old stuff? Is anybody out there producing new stuff that feels like it could have been released in the 80s?
 
Remember I consider OSR a shorthand for the group who plays, promotes, and publishes for the classic editions of D&D.
You can stop right there:devil:.
IMO, if it's about "the classic editions of D&D", you don't get to claim that "the Old School Renaissance is not about playing a particular set of rules (in a particular way, etc)". It very much is, if the name of the rules is part of your definition:thumbsup:!
So that is the contradiction I was referring to.

Mind you - unlike possibly others*, I don't object to you claiming that OSR is about the "classic editions of D&D"! That would change whether I'm interested in the stuff that carries the OSR brand or not, but by myself, I'm a negligible loss and know it:shade:.

So I'd just like the ruleset being acknowledged, if it's part of the definition - as seems to be the case with you. For the sake of consistency, and because otherwise you're throwing my RPG-folders organization system in disarray:tongue:!

*Obviously the author of Zweihander would disagree, if he'd filed his own creation under OSR as well, but as I said, you can discuss that with him:grin:!


TristramEvans TristramEvans - sorry, that response was too cryptic for me. Could you elaborate?
 
Is there an approved/generally-accepted name for new games that aren't rehashed or cloned versions of old games but that capture an old-school spirit and playstyle, as in including random or quasi-random elements in character creation, rules that are focused more on game-world physics than story-structure emulation (preferably including optional modular complexity and embedded situational minigames), focus on sandboxy setting elements and locations with adventure-potential over canned plots (or procedurally-generated non-plots), and so on? Are there such new games that aren't clones or rehashes of old stuff? Is anybody out there producing new stuff that feels like it could have been released in the 80s?
The only thing I seen that truly new with the potential of meeting that list is the AGE system by Green Ronin. But the execution is lacking and they are trying to add narrative elements starting with Modern AGE and Expanse RPG.

so the basic gist that different is that there are no attribute scores. Everything is a bonus to a 3d6 roll equal to or higher than a target number. Plus the dice you roll is setup in a specific way. Roll 3d6, one a different color. If doubles appears on any dice, then you are eligible to do a stunt. The magnitude of which is determine how good the stunt is. The stunts are effectively critical hits. The basic roll was 3d6+attribute+skill.

It can implemented with a lot of complexity or a lot of simplicity. A few years back, my group found it refreshing to play after decades of using GURPS. How Green Ronin implements the idea had issues but we found we can quickly morph it into a system we liked and that in theory we could publish or share. For example, instead of 3d6 with an off-color dice, we roll 3d6 if you roll doubles a critical resulted and the die that was not part of the double determined the magnitude of the critical.

All the other RPG that met your criteria I heard of were released over a decade ago. The issue as I see it is why re-invent the wheel? It takes a lot of work to build an audience for something completely new. And that on top of making it useable along with sharable or publishable in the first place. It not like I haven't tried to take a stab at it multiple times.

Majestic Fantasy RPG for Fudge (this got a big meh from three different groups)
Majestic Stars for AGE (two groups liked this but it wasn't a wow.)
 
Last edited:
The only thing I seen that truly new with the potential of meeting that list is the AGE system by Green Ronin. But the execution is lacking and they are trying to add narrative elements starting with Modern AGE and Expanse RPG.

so the basic gist that different is that there are no attribute scores. Everything is a bonus to a 3d6 roll equal to or higher than a target number. Plus the dice you roll is setup in a specific way. Roll 3d6, one a different color. If doubles appears on any dice, then you are eligible to do a stunt. The magnitude of which is determine how good the stunt is. The stunts are effectively critical hits. The basic roll was 3d6+attribute+skill.

It can implemented with a lot of complexity or a lot of simplicity. A few years back, my group found it refreshing to play after decades of using GURPS. How Green Ronin implements the idea had issues but we found we can quickly morph it into a system we liked and that in theory we could publish or share. For example, instead of 3d6 with an off-color dice, we roll 3d6 if you roll doubles a critical resulted and the die that was not part of the double determined the magnitude of the critical.

All the other RPG that met your criteria I heard of were released over a decade ago. The issue as I see it is why re-invent the wheel? It takes a lot of work to build an audience for something completely new. And that on top of making it useable along with sharable or publishable in the first place. It not like I haven't tried to take a stab at it multiple times.

Majestic Fantasy RPG for Fudge (this got a big meh from three different groups)
Majestic Stars for AGE (two groups liked this but it wasn't a wow.)
I think that's a response to T T. Foster ?
 
You can stop right there:devil:.
IMO, if it's about "the classic editions of D&D", you don't get to claim that "the Old School Renaissance is not about playing a particular set of rules (in a particular way, etc)". It very much is, if the name of the rules is part of your definition:thumbsup:!
So that is the contradiction I was referring to.
Two things

D&D is not the only thing that this groups does including myself. D&D just happens to be the one common thing everybody shares but it never been just about playing D&D.

Then there are the edition wars within D&D itself. Sporadic claims that OD&D was Old School while AD&D was not or vice versa with B/X and BECMI and AD&D 2e thrown into the mix as well. Then there were the hybrids.

Both are why I said it is not about playing a particular set of rules in a particular way.


Mind you - unlike possibly others*, I don't object to you claiming that OSR is about the "classic editions of D&D"! That would change whether I'm interested in the stuff that carries the OSR brand or not, but by myself, I'm a negligible loss and know it:shade:.

So I'd just like the ruleset being acknowledged, if it's part of the definition - as seems to be the case with you. For the sake of consistency, and because otherwise you're throwing my RPG-folders organization system in disarray:tongue:!
Sorry man, life is messy and the OSR is no exception. To date I have everything related to the OSR filed under my AD&D 1e folder including stuff like Stars without number and White Star. I haven't found it difficult in figuring who to throw in there but then again it based on what I know about the author not the system. Which I agree doesn't simplify the situation for anybody but me.

Of course I have an old post about this.

The Old School Renaissance is a mess! 2010

10 year update: It even more of a mess.

*Obviously the author of Zweihander would disagree, if he'd filed his own creation under OSR as well, but as I said, you can discuss that with him:grin:!

Inserting that you brought that up because while Zweihander labeling itself as OSR made my eyes roll. What I had a problem with is when Daniel Fox established a DriveThruRPG community content. I had a discussion about it with Daniel Fox about it. While the issues with the license text were not resolved, it wasn't an issue as Daniel, the program administrator, has let folks using the program publish their works free of Zweihander content elsewhere. I talked to him directly on the Zweihander discord server.

Zweihander, Open Content, and reply to Daniel Fox
 
Last edited:
Is there an approved/generally-accepted name for new games that aren't rehashed or cloned versions of old games but that capture an old-school spirit and playstyle, as in including random or quasi-random elements in character creation, rules that are focused more on game-world physics than story-structure emulation (preferably including optional modular complexity and embedded situational minigames), focus on sandboxy setting elements and locations with adventure-potential over canned plots (or procedurally-generated non-plots), and so on?
Generally accepted on rpg forums? That strikes me as unlikely as we're still arguing about what roleplaying is. ;)

For myself, I tend to differentiate between old school renewal (new stuff inspired by old stuff) and old school rewrite (change the words a bit so it doesn't run foul of trademark law). The first is creation. The second is copyediting.
Are there such new games that aren't clones or rehashes of old stuff? Is anybody out there producing new stuff that feels like it could have been released in the 80s?

I think Romance of the Perilous Land would qualify. The new edition of Maelstrom is different enough it's near to being a new game. Obviously, it uses the original as a starting point but it adds both rules (skills, lifepath character generation) and campaign settings (Ancient Rome, 1086 Britain, Victorian London).

I'd probably include the games that use as D&D base but diverge enough from the source material to be something new as well - Apes Victorious, Esoteric Enterprises.
 
Inserting that you brought that up because while Zweihander labeling itself as OSR made my eyes roll. What I had a problem with is when Daniel Fox established a DriveThruRPG community content. I had a discussion about it with Daniel Fox about it. While the issues with the license text were not resolved, it wasn't an issue as Daniel, the program administrator, has let folks using the program publish their works free of Zweihander content elsewhere. I talked to him directly on the Zweihander discord server.

Zweihander, Open Content, and reply to Daniel Fox

" The OSR was one of the design principles when it was written"

God that guy is so full of shit.
 
WHFR came out in 1986 I was driving by then so it can't be old. Get off my lawn!

Zweihander is based on WFRP 2nd edition. I had to be told this by people who knew 2nd edition, when I did an extensive review of the game and couldn't find any system commonalities with WFRP 1st edition.
 
Zweihander is based on WFRP 2nd edition. I had to be told this by people who knew 2nd edition, when I did an extensive review of the game and couldn't find any system commonalities with WFRP 1st edition.
Does it not use percentile dice?
 
WHFR came out in 1986 I was driving by then so it can't be old. Get off my lawn!
I remember when WFRP came out (and I was 12 at the time, FWIW) thinking that some elements of it (like including Alignments and Character Classes) felt "old-fashioned" which is perhaps part of why in my mind it still falls pretty squarely into the 'old-style' even though other games also released in 1986 (like GURPS and WEG's Ghostbusters) don't - the former for its obsessively deterministic point-based economy, the latter for it's "don't worry about numbers, just make up a good story to keep the players entertained" GMing advice. Not that there's anything wrong with either of those, but they felt like the start of something different that within a few years had pretty much eaten up and subsumed the style of games I liked.
 
I remember when WFRP came out (and I was 12 at the time, FWIW) thinking that some elements of it (like including Alignments and Character Classes) felt "old-fashioned" which is perhaps part of why in my mind it still falls pretty squarely into the 'old-style' even though other games also released in 1986 (like GURPS and WEG's Ghostbusters) don't - the former for its obsessively deterministic point-based economy, the latter for it's "don't worry about numbers, just make up a good story to keep the players entertained" GMing advice. Not that there's anything wrong with either of those, but they felt like the start of something different that within a few years had pretty much eaten up and subsumed the style of games I liked.

This is a fair point, it doesn't really feel like a game from the mid 80s so maybe it along with Rolemaster were the tip of the spear for the OSR. :smile:
 
This is a fair point, it doesn't really feel like a game from the mid 80s so maybe it along with Rolemaster were the tip of the spear for the OSR. :smile:

Don't forget Fantasy Wargaming...The Highest Level of All!
 
um...which one? about WFRP's combat system or Douchehander not being OSR?
Neither, I mean this one where you quoted me:thumbsup:.


...though if you decide to explain what are the great benefits of WFRP1's combat system vs WFRP2's, you know I'd be reading as well:grin:!
 
Sorry man, life is messy and the OSR is no exception.
How dare you:shade:!

OK, here's a very simple litmus test for you:tongue:.

Are Cepheus Engine and G.O.R.E. part of the OSR?
One of them harkens back to Classic Traveller, maintains the same playstyle that was used back then, it's appropriately deadly, and so on...hey, it even can use a weapons-vs-armour table:grin:!
You can make the same argument for G.O.R.E., for that matter:thumbsup:.
If it's part of it, you're right that the OSR ain't defined by using D&D.
If either of them isn't, in your opinion, part of the OSR - sorry, man, but the movement is now inextricably linked to the mechanics. Whether you like that or not:shade:.
 
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 1st edition was not a great system, but a hybrid of ideas taken mainly by the 'big three’ RPGs (AD&D, Runequest and Traveller) popularized in White Wolf magazine in the early 1980s - especially Runequest, and the later Stormbringer/Call of Cthulhu developments, which lent percentile dice mechanisms as well as the overarching themes. People also usually see the relationship to Alexander Scott’s Maelstrom also. The game was originally just intended as a supplement to the Warhammer Fantasy Battle game, but it grew into its own beast by the time of its own release.

Black Industries/Green Ronin’s WFRP2 tidied up a number of systems: standardizing the Characteristic scales, uncoupling the Careers system from Class categories, diving the jumbled skill lists into Skills and Talents, integrated the college-based sorcery system fully and snuck a few ideas in from D20 into the combat system. It also gave the game a full colour interior layout and widened the distribution of the game more into America.

I’ve never cared for Zweihander, to be honest, as I could never see the point of making a Warhammer clone.
 
How dare you:shade:!

OK, here's a very simple litmus test for you:tongue:.

Are Cepheus Engine and G.O.R.E. part of the OSR?
Cepheus no and G.O.R.E. sort of but not really.

Cepheus has it own independent tradition with its origins in the Mongoose Traveller 1e SRD. My bet if somebody told them they were part of the OSR they would laugh. If somebody was serious about labeling them OSR they would feel like that individual was trying to co-opt their efforts. But... in either cases they would not take it seriously as they are too busy with their own stuff to worry about it.

As for Gore better question would be would the following be part of OSR

1619468663384.png
To answer that you have to ask are Mongoose and Green Ronin still D20 Publishers? If not at what point they stepped out of the D20 label as they still both have those work within their catalogs.

As for the above, L&L is yes it OSR, So is 2nd edition Starships & Spaceman (it was rewritten using classic edition mechanics). Pacesetter no because it has it own independent fan base with it own system. For the others I am not familiar with them.

Certainly all of them like the DCC RPG are honorary members of the OSR because of Daniel's outstanding work getting them back into print and building a community around them.



One of them harkens back to Classic Traveller, maintains the same playstyle that was used back then, it's appropriately deadly, and so on...hey, it even can use a weapons-vs-armour table:grin:!
You can make the same argument for G.O.R.E., for that matter:thumbsup:.
If it's part of it, you're right that the OSR ain't defined by using D&D.
If either of them isn't, in your opinion, part of the OSR - sorry, man, but the movement is now inextricably linked to the mechanics. Whether you like that or not:shade:.
It a mess, I already said that. What the OSR is the result of many folks making many decisions. I have a more tight definition than most. But I also champion the freedom to create the works one like to make in the form they want to make in. If that some hard to pin hybrid then so be it.
 
...For myself, I tend to differentiate between old school renewal (new stuff inspired by old stuff) and old school rewrite (change the words a bit so it doesn't run foul of trademark law). The first is creation. The second is copyediting. ...
That tends to be my breakdown but the authors don't need to label it OSR. When I see "OSR" on a product it is not a plus to me, just a marketing gimmick at best. If it was about selling products and not tribal identification, think you'd want to be inclusive and sell a spirit of play, not just mechanics.

Certainly mechanics can help or hinder a spirit of play but to suggest that there is only a narrow set of mechanics (list here the sacred cows of D&D) that can bring forth that spirit is hubris, inexperience or both. It also causes those of us who actually played back in the day all those other non-D&D games and found from years of actual gaming experience (likely before many a OSR author could read) that the spirit did not reside in random attribute generation, or class based, or passive defense, or saving throws, etc., etc. ...to roll our eyes.
 
As time goes on, what is “old school” changes anyway. To guys and gals our age (40+), old school is like 70s-80s. To the kids getting into RPGs now, old school is 3rd edition and Pathfinder. The OGL itself (and open source) is old school now.
 
As time goes on, what is “old school” changes anyway. To guys and gals our age (40+), old school is like 70s-80s. To the kids getting into RPGs now, old school is 3rd edition and Pathfinder. The OGL itself (and open source) is old school now.
Apocalypse World is, like, more than TEN years old, man! :shock:
 
As time goes on, what is “old school” changes anyway. To guys and gals our age (40+), old school is like 70s-80s. To the kids getting into RPGs now, old school is 3rd edition and Pathfinder. The OGL itself (and open source) is old school now.
That tells me I need a new term for the style of stuff I like. Cold War Era rpgs, maybe.:wink:
 
Neither, I mean this one where you quoted me:thumbsup:.


Oh, OK, yeah, forgot about that. I think Rob already answered it kinda, but what I mean is, part of what defined the "old school playstyle" that to a certain extent quarters of the OSR seek to recapture (or never stopped playing that way, as the case may be), is that D&D was once treated very much as a "toolkit", with DMs cobbling together rules from various sources to fit the needs ofa specific campaign. D&D in the late 70's and early 80's wasn't simply D&D...it was the Arduin Grimoire, and Mayfair Role-Aids, it was multiple fanzines and houserules photocopied and passed between groups on college campuses. Even when I sarted playing with 2nd edition, we used the 2e Player's Handbook with the 1st edition DMG, and a dozen or so random sources from magazines to photocopies of third-party supplements never published. That DIY toolkit aspect of multi-compatible rules that any DM could stitch together as a Frankenstein approach to running a game is as inherent an aspect of Old School play as anything else,.

...though if you decide to explain what are the great benefits of WFRP1's combat system vs WFRP2's, you know I'd be reading as well:grin:!

Sure. WFRP is a fantastically designed system. Despite having the appearance of an decade-earlier game with a potpourri of elments thrown in underneath is an incredibly streamlined and intuitive set of mechanics that are swift and robust enough to stand up to various levels of tinkering.

The combat system is downright elegegant (as much as one can use that term in reference to a system that is so deadly and brutal). The procedure is simply...

The attacker rolls percentile dice and if the roll is equal or less than their Weapon Skill, the attack hits.

Damage is determined by subtracting the Defender's Toughness from the Attacker's Might +1d6.

The attacker determines the hit location by reversing the numbers of their attack roll.

Each combatant has the following diagram on their charsheet which indicates the location of a blow and records any army points for that location:

00000000.PNG

The Damage to a ocation is reduced by the armour points, and any excess is subtracted from the defender's Wounds characteristic. If Damage exceeds the remaining Wounds a Critical Hit is scored against that location.

The Critical Hits are where Warhammer's flavour really comes through. There is one set of results for each location, with each effect described in lovingly gory detail, and results can range from maiming, to losing a limb, to instant death.

And that's it. Everything else is bells and whistles.



But let me run through an example, to show what it's like in practice.

Roderick Helmheim is attacking a Beastman. He makes his attack roll, and scores a 37. With a 45 Weapon Skill, that's a hit, so he rolls a D6 for damage, getting a 4, adding that to his Might of 3 and subtracting the Beastman's Toughness of 3, for 4 total points of Damage. Reversing the attack roll of 37, that's a 73, indicating a hit to the Beastmans Body.

The Beastman is wearing a leather jerkin, which provides 1 point of armour, so it takes 3 points of Wounds. Unfortunately for him, the Beastman already sustained a few hits, so it's Wounds are only at 1, meaning this is a Critical Hit.

The GM consults the Critical Hits chart and rolls D100 with the result of 69. . Reading aloud the corresponding effects description, the GM states:

"Your blow smashes your opponent's spine and abdomen, tearing muscle and shattering bone, so that he falls to the ground in two seperate pieces, spilling entrails over a wide area"
 
Why on earth would anyone want to claim to be part of something no three people agree on the boundaries of?

All that does is allow others to define you however they wish, irrespective of how you define yourself

Now, show me something that is tightly defined to the point where there’s general agreement of what a name means, what it’s trying to do, and what people who claim a part in it are generally about - that is something I would consider whether it applied to me or not, and claim it if it applied
 
As time goes on, what is “old school” changes anyway. To guys and gals our age (40+), old school is like 70s-80s. To the kids getting into RPGs now, old school is 3rd edition and Pathfinder. The OGL itself (and open source) is old school now.
Let's see AD&D 1e ran until 1989. So about a decade afterward around 2000, folks gathering on the internet. Then around 2005, folks started taking it until the next level. Pathfinder 1e was a continuation of 3.5 and Pathfinder 2e was introduced in 2019. Pathfinder 1e was released in 2009. So I say for the next decade there will be the odd corner still talking about 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e. That after 2030 folks will try to make a serious revival of 3.5/Pathfinder 1e.
 
Yeah there will be another go around of “character optimization and builds”. I find that things cycle.
 
Now, show me something that is tightly defined to the point where there’s general agreement of what a name means, what it’s trying to do, and what people who claim a part in it are generally about - that is something I would consider whether it applied to me or not, and claim it if it applied
This would have required a level of agreement and control that was never there nor ever desired. The fact the OSR is a muddled confusing mess of the terms is the same reason why the output of the group of folks publishing, promoting, and publishing for the classic editions is a muddled confusing mess. Freedom to what one wants with the material in the form they see best.

All that does is allow others to define you however they wish, irrespective of how you define yourself
I seem to remember folks doing that due to the use of old tired and broken classic editions before Old School Renaissance and OSR gained any currency in the psyche of the hobby.

Why on earth would anyone want to claim to be part of something no three people agree on the boundaries of?
Because circa 2008-2009 there was a sense of that something bigger was happening and OSR as a shorthand for Old School Renaissance/Revival/Revolution was a decent shorthand.
 
Yeah there will be another go around of “character optimization and builds”. I find that things cycle.
Maybe but the run of what people did with the classic editions after OSRIC and Basic Fantasy wasn't a rerun of the 70s and 80s either. The same with a 3.5e revival. It depends on what sparks the revival which will exert a powerful founder's effect. With the classic editions, the obvious in hindsight path that OSRIC and Basic Fantasy took caused a lot of people go "Well hell I can do that too". The long term effect was that publishing side of the community never had a dominant publisher calling the shots and setting the standards in the way that Paizo did for post 3.5.

And this part I don't know much about there are were already rifts in the classic edition community that pre-existed the introduction of OSRIC and Basic Fantasy which all be guarantee there will be several groups doing their own thing one once the first clones came out. And incidentally meant any inclusive term will be controversial almost immediately. Which exactly what happened with OSR.
 
That tends to be my breakdown but the authors don't need to label it OSR. When I see "OSR" on a product it is not a plus to me, just a marketing gimmick at best. If it was about selling products and not tribal identification, think you'd want to be inclusive and sell a spirit of play, not just mechanics.

Certainly mechanics can help or hinder a spirit of play but to suggest that there is only a narrow set of mechanics (list here the sacred cows of D&D) that can bring forth that spirit is hubris, inexperience or both. It also causes those of us who actually played back in the day all those other non-D&D games and found from years of actual gaming experience (likely before many a OSR author could read) that the spirit did not reside in random attribute generation, or class based, or passive defense, or saving throws, etc., etc. ...to roll our eyes.

I think when it is on a product though, it is a little like how the d20 label used to be (where a lot of folks are buying stuff because they know it will be compatible with some form of D&D). So it it is really primarily serving to show the buyer what the system is likely to be and what the style of gaming is likely to be. I don't really have a problem with this. It is just a handy label that means something relatively concrete. That doesn't mean people can't put OSR on products that aren't D&D, but you will probably get some push back if people buy it with that expectation.
 
Oh, OK, yeah, forgot about that. I think Rob already answered it kinda, but what I mean is, part of what defined the "old school playstyle" that to a certain extent quarters of the OSR seek to recapture (or never stopped playing that way, as the case may be), is that D&D was once treated very much as a "toolkit", with DMs cobbling together rules from various sources to fit the needs ofa specific campaign. D&D in the late 70's and early 80's wasn't simply D&D...it was the Arduin Grimoire, and Mayfair Role-Aids, it was multiple fanzines and houserules photocopied and passed between groups on college campuses. Even when I sarted playing with 2nd edition, we used the 2e Player's Handbook with the 1st edition DMG, and a dozen or so random sources from magazines to photocopies of third-party supplements never published. That DIY toolkit aspect of multi-compatible rules that any DM could stitch together as a Frankenstein approach to running a game is as inherent an aspect of Old School play as anything else,.
OK, that maps well to what I know about the old school play, so I'd agree:smile:.
But then, the "old school playstyle" also lead to stuff like Glory Road Roleplay, as you probably know...so it didn't even need to remain D&D-compatible, even if it started as such:wink:.

Sure. WFRP is a fantastically designed system. Despite having the appearance of an decade-earlier game with a potpourri of elments thrown in underneath is an incredibly streamlined and intuitive set of mechanics that are swift and robust enough to stand up to various levels of tinkering.

The combat system is downright elegegant (as much as one can use that term in reference to a system that is so deadly and brutal). The procedure is simply...

The attacker rolls percentile dice and if the roll is equal or less than their Weapon Skill, the attack hits.

Damage is determined by subtracting the Defender's Toughness from the Attacker's Might +1d6.

The attacker determines the hit location by reversing the numbers of their attack roll.

Each combatant has the following diagram on their charsheet which indicates the location of a blow and records any army points for that location:

View attachment 30180

The Damage to a ocation is reduced by the armour points, and any excess is subtracted from the defender's Wounds characteristic. If Damage exceeds the remaining Wounds a Critical Hit is scored against that location.

The Critical Hits are where Warhammer's flavour really comes through. There is one set of results for each location, with each effect described in lovingly gory detail, and results can range from maiming, to losing a limb, to instant death.

And that's it. Everything else is bells and whistles.



But let me run through an example, to show what it's like in practice.

Roderick Helmheim is attacking a Beastman. He makes his attack roll, and scores a 37. With a 45 Weapon Skill, that's a hit, so he rolls a D6 for damage, getting a 4, adding that to his Might of 3 and subtracting the Beastman's Toughness of 3, for 4 total points of Damage. Reversing the attack roll of 37, that's a 73, indicating a hit to the Beastmans Body.

The Beastman is wearing a leather jerkin, which provides 1 point of armour, so it takes 3 points of Wounds. Unfortunately for him, the Beastman already sustained a few hits, so it's Wounds are only at 1, meaning this is a Critical Hit.

The GM consults the Critical Hits chart and rolls D100 with the result of 69. . Reading aloud the corresponding effects description, the GM states:

"Your blow smashes your opponent's spine and abdomen, tearing muscle and shattering bone, so that he falls to the ground in two seperate pieces, spilling entrails over a wide area"
Yeah, that maps well to how I remember it from playing WFRP. But the system we used was pretty similar to that - certainly there were crit hits, and damage was calculated likewise. I seem to remember there was a parry roll, too, but it was over a decade ago* so I might be mixing it up with another d100 system:shade:.
So let me repeat the question, this time with emphasis: what are the advantages of WFRP1e over 2e? From the description, the combat system was pretty much the same - which maps well to what the WFRP hands had explained to me, too. From what I gathered the magic system was a bigger** difference!

*It might have been sooner, too, but I think I've only tried WFRP4e since it was published. So it'd be years, at least.
**But given my usual interest in magic systems, I didn't care about those differences, I wasn't playing a wizard anyway...and I'd probably instantly name the PC "Rencewind" if I'd rolled something magical for starting Career. Although amusingly, Rencewind might have turned into a decent WFRP PC, given that satire isn't exactly unknown in WFRP:tongue:!
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top