- Joined
- Aug 20, 2017
- Messages
- 8,388
- Reaction score
- 24,322
I think early Palladium is a really good example of gonzo that takes it self seriously. Palladium Fantasy is a very gonzo game, but Kev put a lot of effort into worldbuilding.
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.
Has it? Does the OSR have a "brand identity"? If so who is creating it?But as the OSR has continued it's become a publishing phenomenon as well, and therefore it has developed something of a brand identity.
I think you make some good points with your observations both just now and in the previous post. It is a thing that what many see are the people you mention. This can be frustrating for those of us who are more low-key and trying to publish stuff. Until one realize that it is not a zero sum game. That the reality of publishing today is that we not limited by shelf space in a game store or storage in a distributor's warehouse. But it also means it requires a different approach. For me personally, I opt for slow and steady with the occasional drop of open content stuff like my Herbs and Potions or Merchant Adventures. Others like Kevin Crawford have their own spin on doing this. Some like Frog God Games and Goodman Games opt to run things more like a traditional publisher.You likely have a better perspective than me, I'm not a publisher or anything, just someone reading and watching stuff on the internet.
Honestly I think it's about as useful as when people say d20 based game. That often seems to be used as a shorthand for modern D&d based mechanics but with such variation it's almost useless. The thing it tends to tell a buyer is where the seller believes their product fits in the larger RPG world. D20 based (I'd assume probably unified systems where odds jump in 5% increments may or may not have strong tactical component.. OSR - probably simple less tactical may have non unified systems. D100 probably relatively unified systems with no levels.Has it? Does the OSR have a "brand identity"? If so who is creating it?
I know I am challenging your assertion but think about it. Does the OSR have a brand identity? Or is it the case that certain publishers who have a distinctive artistic style and perhaps a distinctive way of promoting their stuff are the ones you are focusing on. Followed by linking them to the idea of the OSR?
A related side note, the vast majority of publisher who put their stuff under the OSR category on DriveThruRPG even when it explictiy uses classic edition mechanics, don't use any type of OSR branding including myself. But when it comes to blogs, podcasts, and other social media, some but not all including myself say that we do is part of the OSR. But that about the extent of it.
It been this way since the term OSR became a thing back in 08 to 09. Because then and now, it useless as a way of telling the potential buyer what this product is about. It is gonzo, it is game of thrones using OD&D stuff, it is about sandbox campaign like my stuff, is it weird horror? When you hear D&D 5e, Savage Worlds, GURPS, you think X and when you look the products for those games usually X is supported by what there.
With the OSR closest thing that comes to that is that may have something to do with classic edition mechanics. But what people do with those classic editions mechanics varies considerably.
Honestly I think it's about as useful as when people say d20 based game. That often seems to be used as a shorthand for modern D&d based mechanics but with such variation it's almost useless. The thing it tends to tell a buyer is where the seller believes their product fits in the larger RPG world. D20 based (I'd assume probably unified systems where odds jump in 5% increments may or may not have strong tactical component.. OSR - probably simple less tactical may have non unified systems. D100 probably relatively unified systems with no levels.
Broad strokes
I think that was very very accurate and remains pretty accurate but just like OSR has expanded beyond retroclones I think D20 is growing to include just about any game where the core mechanic is d20 to hit/succeed. An example is I think the OMNI system might currently be referred to as d20 and it's not 3.x based.I've only ever use D20-based game to those based on D&D 3rd edition's engine, so they all have six standard stats, XP-based classes & levels, saving throws, and Feats. Interestingly, I don't think I've yet to encounter a game that uses the D20 as it's base resolution mechanic that isn't 3rd edition based, the closest being 2D20.
They really should have picked a different trademark than D20... I try and use D20 games ONLY to refer to games derived from the D&D 3.x SRDs in the vein of 3.x style games (so the OSR retro-clones that derive from the SRD are not D20 though technically they could be...).I think that was very very accurate and remains pretty accurate but just like OSR has expanded beyond retroclones I think D20 is growing to include just about any game where the core mechanic is d20 to hit/succeed. An example is I think the OMNI system might currently be referred to as d20 and it's not 3.x based.
Of course Arcana Unearthed was an early OGL "D20" game... Monte Cook could get away with just being OGL and not using the D20 license for some little unknown reason... :-) :-) :-). I think there were other full on OGL games in those early days but yea, it broke open later. Of course he used the D20 license on his supplements that didn't need character generation...Remember that originally (up until the release of 4E) “d20” meant something different - it had a separate/additional license with additional restrictions (e.g. you couldn’t include full character-generation rules and had to include a blurb on the cover stating that the D&D Players Handbook was required to use it) in exchange for which you got to use the “d20” brand logo. That was how almost all third-party/OGL content was released early on. It wasn’t until after WotC pulled the rug out from under the d20 publishers with the release of 3.5 that publishers started abandoning the d20 license for the less-restrictive OGL.
Who expects rational labeling these days?They really should have picked a different trademark than D20... I try and use D20 games ONLY to refer to games derived from the D&D 3.x SRDs in the vein of 3.x style games (so the OSR retro-clones that derive from the SRD are not D20 though technically they could be...).
Pre-3.x D&D, Bushido, Pendragon, Hero Wars/Hero Quest are NOT D20 games... (just to name a few games I know of that use D20 for resolution).
I would apply the same for D100, though I prefer to use BRP family for those. Warhammer Fantasy Role Play is not a D100 game...
And I guess I would expect a "2d6" game to be based on Traveller... Chainmail uses 2d6 but is not a 2d6 game...
And don't try and create a 3d6 game category (TFT and GURPS are not really the same game engine, and Hero is definitely it's own thing).
Wasn't it the Erotic Handbook that revealed the OGL license advantages? I seem to recall that but memory can be a tricky thing.Remember that originally (up until the release of 4E) “d20” meant something different - it had a separate/additional license with additional restrictions (e.g. you couldn’t include full character-generation rules and had to include a blurb on the cover stating that the D&D Players Handbook was required to use it) in exchange for which you got to use the “d20” brand logo. That was how almost all third-party/OGL content was released early on. It wasn’t until after WotC pulled the rug out from under the d20 publishers with the release of 3.5 that publishers started abandoning the d20 license for the less-restrictive OGL.
IIRC both of those (WotC tightening the terms of the d20 STL in response to that book, and undercutting all of the third-party publishers with the release of 3.5) happened right around the same time (mid-2003), so it was likely a combination of both that got more publishers looking more closely at the non-d20 OGL.Wasn't it the Erotic Handbook that revealed the OGL license advantages? I seem to recall that but memory can be a tricky thing.
It also probably didn't hurt that by then D20 was well established as D&D and OGL was just about the same from a consumers perspective. Losing D20 off your product in lieu of OGL didn't decrease sales.IIRC both of those (WotC tightening the terms of the d20 STL in response to that book, and undercutting all of the third-party publishers with the release of 3.5) happened right around the same time (mid-2003), so it was likely a combination of both that got more publishers looking more closely at the non-d20 OGL.
Golden Heroes used a D20 + Attacker's Weapon Class + Defender's Defence [Armor, and it was descending] Class, vs. a TN of 21. There was an attack table, but there sure didn't need to be. It was also basically a re-tooled Gamma World 1E, so similar to D&D. No classes or levels, but a cousin for sure.I've only ever use D20-based game to those based on D&D 3rd edition's engine, so they all have six standard stats, XP-based classes & levels, saving throws, and Feats. Interestingly, I don't think I've yet to encounter a game that uses the D20 as it's base resolution mechanic that isn't 3rd edition based, the closest being 2D20.
Wasn't 1e d% based?Paranoia has always used d20 as well.
Oh, actually, good point! I checked and d20 comes in with 2e.Wasn't 1e d% based?
Is the OSR hysterical?
By "hysterical" you mean the condition that requires a female to have induced orgasms as part of the treatment?
Because if so... I've apparently been buying the wrong OSR products.
If it did that I think the OSR fan base would look much different than it currently is.By "hysterical" you mean the condition that requires a female to have induced orgasms as part of the treatment?
Because if so... I've apparently been buying the wrong OSR products.
Paranoia has always used d20 as well.
I get your frustration.The key I think in all this is for folks in the hobby is realize that with the OSR the reality is much vaster they than realize.
Thats sort of where d20 as it has expanded in some eyes runs into the same issues as OSR. At some point saying you mostly roll a d20 is a stupid meaningless grouping. As the OSR has gone from retroclones, to retrostyle , to whatever it is now it's lake of cohesive focus means it's pretty useless as a designator.I guess that's true, though I've never once ever called it, or heard anyone call it, "a D20 game"
I've long thought that there's a gap in the D&D like market for a game designed purely for playing high level characters.One thing I think is... ahistorical about the OSR is... the stuff that TSR started denouncing in the early 80s in favor of grounded, detailed worldbuilding is the galactic dragons playstyle that was very popular back then-- else why try to denounce it?-- and it is totally valid. People dismiss it as "Monty Haul", but having a lot of powerful magic is only Monty Haul if the powerful magic allows you to roflstomp the rest of the campaign; if the rest of the world is as powerful as the PCs, the game's just as challenging and just as deadly as wrestling an elderly kobold for his last copper piece.
This playstyle... which I learned in the early 90s (and spent the rest of the 90s unlearning) is missing from the modern discourse on "old school D&D".
This is like the sort of posts where people would try and infer things about Traveller's default setting from the character generation rules - and they'd invariably only look at the first three Little Black Books, so the six careers were (Space) Navy, (Space) Marines, Army, Scouts, Merchant, and Other. The result were about as sane as you'd imagine, and the whole thing was silly, but people tried.You see this in blog posts that are about things like "How do we make sense of alignment languages?" or "what do alignments languages imply about the default D&D setting?". To my mind the answer is "you don't" and "what setting?" and I think if you're even asking the question you're probably not actually old school but OSR. (Edit: I don't mean to imply that people weren't doing this from the very beginning, but that doing this immediately begins the process of moving away from what the OSR wants to recover).
Traveller: The New Era, from 1993. d20, roll low, vs attribute+skill, so more like GURPS with a d20 than anything D&D3 based.I've only ever use D20-based game to those based on D&D 3rd edition's engine, so they all have six standard stats, XP-based classes & levels, saving throws, and Feats. Interestingly, I don't think I've yet to encounter a game that uses the D20 as it's base resolution mechanic that isn't 3rd edition based, the closest being 2D20.
Traveller: The New Era, from 1993. d20, roll low, vs attribute+skill, so more like GURPS with a d20 than anything D&D3 based.
Back in the day it was occasionally called the 'd20 system' to differentiate it from earlier versions of both Traveller and from earlier versions of the 'House Rules' (as GDW was then calling the Twilight: 2000 (2e), Dark Conspiracy, etc. system) that used a d10.
I hear but I am not ready to surrender my usage of OSR? Why because still saying OSR and writing out OSR is still pretty fun given the alliteration with TSR. To me it still just feels more "right: than the alternates. Besides I long ago come to peace with the fact that I will have to give the full explanation of what it is I do rather than expect saying OSR will just magically cover it. Also perhaps I am used to the gonzo side of the OSR because they were there from the get-go and I had numerous positive interactions with folks whose creative interests tend to the gonzo.I get your frustration.
I consider myself an "old school" GM, but I am certainly not OSR. But like it or not the people who promote the gonzo type of play and the associated aesthetics seem to be more successful in their marketing, so maybe instead of fighting over the label, "old school" GMs and content producers should call themselves something else... like Retro or something.
#dildOSRBy "hysterical" you mean the condition that requires a female to have induced orgasms as part of the treatment?
Because if so... I've apparently been buying the wrong OSR products.
Well it because it describes the route 3.0/3.5/4e/and to some extent 5e went. Just sub in feats, subclasses, and other character options for magic items although they are still present.One thing I think is... ahistorical about the OSR is... the stuff that TSR started denouncing in the early 80s in favor of grounded, detailed worldbuilding is the galactic dragons playstyle that was very popular back then-- else why try to denounce it?-- and it is totally valid. People dismiss it as "Monty Haul", but having a lot of powerful magic is only Monty Haul if the powerful magic allows you to roflstomp the rest of the campaign; if the rest of the world is as powerful as the PCs, the game's just as challenging and just as deadly as wrestling an elderly kobold for his last copper piece.
This playstyle... which I learned in the early 90s (and spent the rest of the 90s unlearning) is missing from the modern discourse on "old school D&D".