OSR: what is it even

[DanDareGM]

I believe you but for me in all those years of playing D&D until my early 20s I never heard anyone say, 'Let's sneak pass and just steal the treasure for the xp.' XP never came up in discussions about tactics or goals at all.

Yeah that's why Justin Alexander calls it an ur game. The rules were a bit of a mish mash. People interpreted and played them differently or learned about them chinese whispers style. So few of us had very similar experiences.

All my players also DMed so we arrived at a group version of the rules and played to that interpretation. We were also wargamers so we played to build ourselves up to have keeps or towers and our own fiefdoms.

 

[LikelyArrow]

It's similar to my taste in horror movies. My first choice would be to watch a 1970s/early 1980s Italian horror movie that's all atmosphere and nightmare logic rather than something with more of a linear & coherent narrative.

Yeah, Nude for Satan is a classic.

Spoiler

(I'm smiling at the thought of how many people will think that's a joke.)

 

[TristramEvans]

Yes. I also enjoyed the chat and the anecdotes.

I realised I won’t like it. I’ve got some of the games but sure I won’t play them. I thought the various “hack” games just showed a lack of imagination.

I've made no small bones about disliking D&D since I bounced hard off of 2e in the early 90s. Every iteration of D&D, before and after, have those same elements that I really just cannot stand in a game (and I have tried everything, from OD&D to 5th edition, only skipping 3.5).

However there is an aspect of the OSR that I feel doesn't get discussed as often as it should when defining the OSR, because it's an intrinsic part of it - what I'd refer to as "social archaeology". People looking into the origins and development of the hobby. That's the OSR that find fascinating, whether it's the nostalgic ramblings of Grognardia or legitimate documentaries on Arneson's home games like Secrets of Blackmoor. Jon Peterson's seminal work grew out of the OSR as much as anything. So whereas I have literally zero interest in any retroclone of "old school D&D", there is that aspect of the OSR that I am happy to engage with.

 

[DanDareGM]

Yeah, Nude for Satan is a classic.

Spoiler

(I'm smiling at the thought of how many people will think that's a joke.)

Made me think of Flesh Gordon.

 

[TristramEvans]

Yeah that's why Justin Alexander calls it an ur game. The rules were a bit of a mish mash. People interpreted and played them differently or learned about them chinese whispers style. So few of us had very similar experiences.

All my players also DMed so we arrived at a group version of the rules and played to that interpretation. We were also wargamers so we played to build ourselves up to have keeps or towers and our own fiefdoms.

This is why I think there is a dangerous mistake that hobby historians make when they conflate RPG game design trends with playstyles. I contend that every playstyle extant today originated the moment that D&D left wargamer circles and ended up in the hands of regular folk (mostly college students) that deciphered the rules in their own way, be it purely Game dungeoncrawls to joint storytelling sessions.

 

[TristramEvans]

The OSR is at its best when it recognises that what it's trying to create is a modern mythical version of how old RPGs *were* and leans into that fact and capitalises on it.

I personally think the OSR is at it's best when creating randomized encounter charts.

 

[Sharrow]

My style of play back then was informed by the random encounter tables and chargen rules in RQ2, and the chargen and essays in Chivalry & Sorcery 2, and it's general structure. There was little enough detail of Glorantha in RQ2 (no Cults of Prax - I never got a copy of that, though I did have Cults of Terror) that it wasn't much more than an implied setting with some names on a map. C&S had a strongly implied setting, but the rest was up to the GM and group.

So it was pretty sand-boxy, but with more civilised area than most early D&D games seem to have had, and wilderness travel was always a big part of our games.

Looking back on it, I think that most of our games, be they RQ, C&S, Aftermath!, Space Opera, Rolemaster, or whatever, were basically the same game, just with different trappings, and we varied the game more for the opportunity to explore the options a different rule set gave than because it was for a different setting or genre.

 

[T. Foster]

When someone reads or hears a description or defense of axiomatic "OSR play" (the merits of sandbox play, or dungeoneeering, XP for Gold, using henchmen and hirelings, puzzles and challenges designed to test player ingenuity and problem-solving skills rather than character stats, random/emergent character creation, trusting the GM to make ad hoc judgment calls rather than relying on a precedent in the rules for everything, prioritizing exploration over acting or combat-as-sport, etc.) it's possible to have one of several different reactions, which should inform your future interest and engagement with OSR-style play:

1) I used to play that way and hated it and moved on to a different style of play and have no desire to go back
- This is a perfectly legitimate and acceptable reaction. OSR-style play isn't for you and we hope you're happy with what you're playing instead.

2) I used to play that way and moved on to a different style of play but I kind of miss that old way and would like to maybe return to it.
- Great! This is where a lot of the "founders" of the OSR were when we started talking about this stuff and why we decided it was worth exploring further.

3) I used to play in a way that was maybe kind of like this but not really and it sounds like this might be more fun than what we did back then.
-Also great! This is also where a lot of the "founders" of the OSR (especially those of us who were kids in the 80s, as opposed to the more college-age crowd of the 70s and were operating in more of a cargo-cult manner without really understanding the reasoning and logic behind what we were doing) were when we started talking about this stuff, and that desire to maybe do things "better" than we did then is a big part of who we started exploring and advocating this stuff.

4) I always played this way and still do and don't need some new name for it or a bunch of come-lately tourists telling me stuff I already know and getting some of the details wrong.
- OK, fine. Good for you. I'm glad you're still having fun, but there's no need to be hostile about it. The OSR isn't really for you, because you don't "need" it, but you can still be an ally and share your wisdom and experience with the OSR kids got maybe help correct some of our misconceptions or avoid some pitfalls you already know about that we might not. We'd love to hear from you.

5) I played back in the old days and the way we played wasn't like this at all.
- OK. We realize and accept that what we're describing isn't how everybody, or even most people, played. But, given that, does this approach sound like it might be fun to you?
5a) Yes
- Great! See #3 above.
5b) No
- OK, then. See #1 above.
5c) I refuse to answer that. It's a dumb question because nobody ever actually played this way. It's just a myth created after the fact by a bunch of people who weren't there.
- Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but frankly you're wrong about this. Just because you didn't play this way doesn't mean that nobody did. And even if you were right and nobody played this way back then people can and are playing that way now and having fun with it, so it's still valid, even if you disagree with it and think it's not really legitimate.

6) I started playing rpgs after this kind of stuff had fallen out of fashion so I never experienced this kind of play first-hand, and maybe even never heard about it.
- OK. But given that, does it sound interesting to you?
6a) Yes
- Great! You're the intended target of the OSR, the reason we started describing and advocating this play style which we felt had been neglected, largely forgotten, and badly misunderstood and unfairly dismissed. We wanted people who weren't familiar with it to learn about it on the theory that at least some of them might be interested in trying it.
6b) No
OK, then. See #1 above.

7) I don't know or care about any of this stuff but want to be part of the OSR anyway because it seems more popular than what I'm into.
- Well, OK, I guess. But if you're going to call yourself OSR it would really help if you actually did follow some of its philosophy and didn't just latch onto it as a marketing tag and dilute its meaning and usefulness as a label for everybody else.

If you're in category 1, 4, 5b, 5c, or 6b it's okay to not care about or participate in OSR-style discussions, but telling everybody who does that they're dumb or wrong isn't helpful and we really wish you wouldn't do it.

If you're in categories 2, 3, 5a, or 6a, welcome aboard!

And if you're in category 7, please just move on to another trend. Everyone will be better off that way.

 

[TristramEvans]

 

[Skarg]

I dunno, man. I distinctly remember people saying "My Intelligence is too low, I wouldn't have thought of that".

We've generally played with all the devices described:
1. Your PC has IQ and X background or skills, so your PC just does know Y.
2. Your PC might know Z - You or GM makes a roll to see if your PC knows Z.
3. Player thinks of a clever thing to do, that (like 1 above) fits the PC, so they can do that, and logical results ensue.
4. Player thinks of a clever thing to do, but their IQ / background / skills don't support that, so the player roleplays the PC not thinking of what the player thought of, and/or tries a hard IQ roll to see if their PC has an OOC moment of exceptional cleverness.

They can all work together, though the GM may need to figure out when and how exactly to apply which. The guidelines in TFT/ITL and GURPS Basic do a pretty good job of laying out guidelines for such things.

 

[AsenRG]

Damn? What will I do with all of this gold?

I mean the only things in here that cost those levels of gold are fortresses, armies, and navies.

Maybe a little to make some new magical abilities too.

If only someone had pointed out what to do with all of this!

IOW, I'm pretty sure the goal was less Become Rich and more Become Powerful independent Warlord. If players chose not to do that, and just continued to knock around the world as heroric-ish murderhobos-for-hire, then well, that's pretty much on them.

"Fortresses, armies and navies" are what I was thinking about...


Though opulent palaces for social gatherings of nobles are a close second. There's more than one way to Warlord Power!

XP for gold never made sense to me and we never used it. I mean the gold was in itself a reward. I do far prefer the idea of XP for solving a problem vs killing stuff, but sadly back in the day when I was playing a lot of D&D that was not an idea anyone I played with came up with (in D&D, other games that was often assumed, but we never had the light bulb go off to use the idea with D&D).

...interesting that you didn't transfer mechanics between games. Can you make an informed guess why?

I mean, I wasn't around back then, your guess is going to be better-informed than mine!

What OSR / D&D-like games have you tried? If just the fairly pure retro-clones might I suggest a look at Beyond the Wall. The D&D inspiration is apparent, but the implementation is quite different.

Having played BtW...it is different in some aspects, and still quite the same in others.

CoC is one of those games were sort of zero to hero makes sense to me. I say sort of because the PCs are usually competent in their field, but their field usually isn't stop a gruesome world ending plot, so very OJT in a new field. They have to adapt quickly or they will not be around long.

Mind you it isn’t about excluding it is about having some sort of connecting tissue. I don’t demand that WEG d6 Star Wars be considered a PbtA game so I don’t get the need to try to make Top Secret an OSR game.

It is OK if a game you like isn’t OSR

But then it leads to the fact that people who play games that are actually older than any OSR ruleset, aren't part of the "old school Renaissance" movement, while the latest OSR hearth breaker is...

So I maintain it's misleading. I just can't be bothered to argue with a ship that has sailed.

For a long time, I would insist on including the likes of Traveller and RuneQuest in any list of OSR games. And in a broader, general sense I still do. But I also recognize that for most people OSR equals D&D derived, and it's become far easier to take the path of least resistance and accept that for most conversations that's precisely what people mean. It's about as productive as arguing about what "pulp" means as it relates to games to split hairs any further. Most of us know what people mean when they say it.

You and me both.

Keep in mind folks that the OSR (classic D&D) is a subset of a larger OSR (all older RPGs).

Yeah, sure, but the "larger OSR" (which should logically include not only all older RPGs, but also all the games in the style of and compatible with said older RPGs) can't use the tag without it being seen as misleading.

It does rankle some, I've just stopped spilling virtual ink over it...and instead I just stopped promoting OSR products (basically putting them under the same policy as 5e and 2d20 products).
Some OSR-adjacent products still get a pass, though - stuff like Arbiter of Worlds and How to Create a Fantasy Sandbox, for example.

The thing is OSR was meant to be, once it first arose, a handy descriptor of a style of play and those games that intentionally support that style. By acquiescing to the "it's D&D" crowd you lose the utility of the term entirely.

Yes, but at the end of the day, a term means what it is used for.

And, frankly, I just decided that I can discuss more productive things with robertsconley than whether my favourite systems count as OSR. I am happy to report that this decision has paid off.

Possibly, it was long ago. However I remember a great deal of play in 1974/75 that was "there are about 10 orcs in there, is there another way around?". And the inevitable "I want to convince the elf queen to have sex with me" that seemed to haunt early, all male, high school level play.

...man, if you think it's absent from all-female, post-graduate level play, you're in for a surprise!

(The above describes some groups I've run for. Neither the elven queen nor the elven king wanted to relax their guard in social combat around these PCs, I can report!)

I'm sure if I had any actual fucks to give about it, I'd make at least a better show of fighting on that particular hill.

But, yes. When I talk about Classic Traveller in particular as part of an OSR conversation, I'm implicitly (or even explicitly) making a reference to the style of play the game engenders. It'll usually fit within the context of the discussion at hand. The issue you run into is that, for a lot of OSR fans, OSR implies more than "just" the playstyle; it also implies a degree of compatibility (ie: for adventures) that goes along with that old D&D lineage.

Again, you and me both. I just make sure to denote it's "OSR-styled, but not D&D-based".

I believe you but for me in all those years of playing D&D until my early 20s I never heard anyone say, 'Let's sneak pass and just steal the treasure for the xp.' XP never came up in discussions about tactics or goals at all.

I'd submit that this is about the players, though. I've heard plenty of this in the aforementioned Acsiom 16, when the group skillset supported it.

I personally think the OSR is at it's best when creating randomized encounter charts.

I concur, FWIW.

 

[AsenRG]

Your request is my command. https://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/preproom/loprep.html
Shortly after that I wrote this series : https://strangeflight.blog/2016/11/03/low-prep-rich-traveller-campaigns/

Actual I wrote all that 8 years ago and it needs some rework. Making it more concise and procedural as well as expanding it to include new techniques I learned from Stars Without Number https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/230009/Stars-Without-Number-Revised-Edition-Free-Version

While I was addressing Robert Conley's posts on SF Sandbox, I'd be more than happy to join a different SF sandbox KS as well! The more, the merrier...


...just a note: "more procedural" doesn't always equate "better". Some things* are best left on Referee discretion!
Nice touch on including the "double tag" on 9, though. People usually put that on 2 or 12 to save space, but it makes it less likely than it should be, IMO.


*I mean, I can easily roll "promote" and "violence" as an Event for a sandbox. Whether that means "violent entertainment is on the rise on this planet" or "gang war is brewing", is up to the Referee.
(And then we get into the fact that I often substitute such rolls with interpreting Tarot cards, in fact I recently gifted out Fate of Chthulhu GM her first deck...OK, let's not go there!)

 

[sharps54]

Yeah, sure, but the "larger OSR" (which should logically include not only all older RPGs, but also all the games in the style of and compatible with said older RPGs) can't use the tag without it being seen as misleading.

The issue with this statement is that not all older games are of a compatible playstyle or philosophy. Trying to lump Chivalry & Sorcery together with Tunnels & Trolls and Aftermarh is just stupid. The only thing they have in common with each other is they are all roleplaying games and all over 40 years old.

 

[AsenRG]

The issue with this statement is that not all older games are of a compatible playstyle or philosophy. Trying to lump Chivalry & Sorcery together with Tunnels & Trolls and Aftermarh is just stupid. The only thing they have in common with each other is they are all roleplaying games and all over 40 years old.

Why? I'm pretty sure C&S would become a sandbox if I'm running it...

 

[sharps54]

Why? I'm pretty sure C&S would become a sandbox if I'm running it...

Let’s go with your assertion for a minute. If all older RPGs should be considered OSR what is the cut off age wise? Help me finish this statement, “OSR includes all RPGs published between 1974 and ______.”

 

[TristramEvans]

The issue with this statement is that not all older games are of a compatible playstyle or philosophy. Trying to lump Chivalry & Sorcery together with Tunnels & Trolls and Aftermarh is just stupid. The only thing they have in common with each other is they are all roleplaying games and all over 40 years old.

Right, but none of those are OSR, only TSR-era D&D clones and heartbreakers.

 

[AsenRG]

Let’s go with your assertion for a minute. If all older RPGs should be considered OSR what is the cut off age wise? Help me finish this statement, “OSR includes all RPGs published between 1974 and ______.”

"...1989, as well as games in the same style that use compatible mechanics"

 

[sharps54]

"...1989, as well as games in the same style that use compatible mechanics"

So that literally means every RPG is OSR because I’m pretty sure any mechanic or twist you’ll find in games today you can find a precedence for in a game published between 1974 and 1989. By your definition the term OSR is just another term for RPG.

 

[sharps54]

Right, but none of those are OSR, only TSR-era D&D clones and heartbreakers.

Not according to AsenRG which is why I’m playing out the thought experiment

 

[robertsconley]

Right, but none of those are OSR, only TSR-era D&D clones and heartbreakers.

Or RPGs that play on the themes of classic D&D. Those games may not be at the center of the OSR (all caps) but more than a few that play, promote, and publish for classic D&D also work with those RPGs.

Why? Because if you are a fan of those themes it easy to try another system with explicit support for those themes.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

This is why I think there is a dangerous mistake that hobby historians make when they conflate RPG game design trends with playstyles. I contend that every playstyle extant today originated the moment that D&D left wargamer circles and ended up in the hands of regular folk (mostly college students) that deciphered the rules in their own way, be it purely Game dungeoncrawls to joint storytelling sessions.

I think we can consider that one pretty much a proven thesis after The Elusive Shift. Hell, just reading Glenn Blacow's Aspects of Adventure Gaming proves you're right here.

 

[SJB]

Dungeons never made sense to me before. They still do not.

I think this in itself is an “old school” opinion.

Chivalry & Sorcery had the “Place of Adventure” IIRC.

DragonQuest simply stated: “Of course, conceptually most dungeons make no sense (for a variety of reasons, the most blatant being the space given for creatures to live in), but it is the simplest and least time-consuming type of adventure to design.”

 

[JoeNuttall]

Regarding the origin of railroads. I have read (almost) all the 200 odd adventures that were published in the 70s, and apart from one the only sorts of railroading are the two extremely mild forms you get as a natural consequence of Tournaments - linear adventures, and the starting hook.

Starting with the first ever tournament (Tomb of Horrors, tournament 1975) you see linear mini-dungeons as an easy way of tracking parties' progress towards the goal. Secondly since tournaments usually start in media res they have an introduction explaining how come the party is in its current predicament, but when later published for non-tournament play such details are marked as tournament only. For example in Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan (tournament 1979, republished 1980), the original tournament start is given, plus an alternate start for campaign play.

The ending of A3 (the published version, 1981) is split into tournament and non-tournament versions - the non-tournament one says :

IF THE PARTY WINS ...

Congratulations one due. That's quite a group of players, there!
The iron staircase leads up into building B59, the Slave Lords Stronghold in the hidden city (map B). If the party tries to go this way, they will almost certainly be killed or captured, if they do not, they must still escape the catacombs, the town, and the vengence of the surviving slavers.

If the players are to participate in module A4, the DM should arrange to have them captured at some point (and raised if necessary].

So the assumption is to play on until the players are probably captured and then play A4, but even then there's a possibility that they're not (just you won't be able to play A4).

There is one scenario from the 70s which does stand out for its railroading - Laura Hickman's scenario Rahasia (Daystar West, 1979). In this version Tracy Hickman only did the maps and the introduction in which he says that Megadugeons are awful and boring and only he and Laura have the solution. This introduction shows a distinct lack of awareness of the RPG scene at the time, where in the preceeding 12 months there was a veritable explosion of creativity of alternative styles of adventuring. It is not as much a railroad as the later versions of Rahasia (as published by TSR) until you get to the end of the module which contains various read-aloud endings like it's a Choose Your Own Adventure book. In particular if the players refuse to play along and remove Rahasia's veil then the paragraph to read ends with the enranged rownsfolk attacking en-masse - 40 villagers at 4 attacks/round each (!!)

I haven't read Pharoah (Daystar West, 1980) but the TSR version of Pharoah (1982) has a railroad start. By 1983 it starts to be a general issue with TSR modules, and by 1984 its endemic.

 

[ffilz]

The capture at the end of A3 beginning of A4 was definitely something different than anything that I had seen before. But I also seem to recall some of the linear adventures having impassable doors or other things that forced the single path. Things definitely got worse in the 1980s.

 

[Skarg]

The problem I see with the OSR label is that its name has only one adjective: OLD, yet it's assuming D&D. And even "old" is pretty useless as a descriptor.

I love most of the game style preferences commonly associated with the OSR, but I've never cared for D&D itself.

At least it's consistent with many D&D players' long-held tradition of speaking as if D&D is the only RPG that matters.

 

[AppleJax]

If you going for a larger player base then you need to target D&D mechanics. It's not fantasy, mind you, nor a retro-clone of classic D&D. But definitely, that would be considered D&Dish.

For example

Shadowdark (as an example of how minimal you can get D&Dish wise)
Cities without Number
Stars without Number
White Star

What you don't want to do and get advantage of the compatibility is go completely off beat like with Mork Borg or Black Hack (uses 2d6 instead of 1d20).

This is not to say the above doesn't have an advantage in adopting the OSR. They are both straightforward minimalist rule sets, including Shadowdark. That is also part of the OSR. And there is always the chance that what you come up with will resonate with a substantial segment of OSR folks like Mork Borg did.

You may want to look at Cities without Number as the foundation. Kevin Crawford has opened it up and all the "without Number" RPGs have a large player base.

I’m not looking for cyberpunk. I’m completely burnt out on that genre.

I glanced at SWN but it just doesn’t inspire me the way that Alternity and d20 Future did back in the 2000s.

 

[lategamer]

Right, but none of those are OSR, only TSR-era D&D clones and heartbreakers.

Aha. So OSR is only replicating the bad stuff

 

[DeadBob]

Aha. So OSR is only replicating the bad stuff

So, #1 on T.Foster’s list then?

 

[T. Foster]

So, #1 on T.Foster’s list then?

Exactly. I almost named him in that post but remember when people used to tag my name in straw man opinions and how much I didn’t like it so I thought better of it. But yeah.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Let’s go with your assertion for a minute. If all older RPGs should be considered OSR what is the cut off age wise? Help me finish this statement, “OSR includes all RPGs published between 1974 and ______.”

I will bow to the wisdom of Douglas Adams here.

1. Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.

 

[robertsconley]

I glanced at SWN but it just doesn't inspire me the way that Alternity and d20 Future did back in the 2000s.

My favorite RPG remains GURPS, but if I want to share or publish, I have to use the tools that are available to me.

I’m not looking for cyberpunk. I’m completely burnt out on that genre.

Cyberpunk is just a hop and a skip from modern day role-playing. You can remove the cyberpunk bits and layer in the urban fantasy stuff.

Furthermore, d20 Future is still available under the OGL.
For example, here

d20 Modern System Reference Document

However you stated

, but I've wanted to make an OSR game for urban fantasy, conspiracy thriller, and supernatural horror for a while now.

Not a RPG game in general but an OSR RPG for urban fantasy. If the OSR doesn't inspire you, then don't try to cater to that audience. Go with something you love, like D20 Modern/Future, and build up your audience from there. At the level I publish at, folks prize authenticity more than anything else. Being authentic about your passion is by far the best marketing tool you have to get your creative vision out there.


I could have done nothing but complain about SJ Games' lack of interest in GURPS 3PP for the past 15 years. But I didn't. Instead, I figured out how to make classic D&D work for me in order to write the stuff I wanted to write. In doing so, I didn't have to reinvent the wheel just to have a system to use for adventures and settings. Also, I knew from hanging out on the various forums and other social media that the folks who played and liked classic D&D were receptive to the stuff I like to write about.

Now Cities without Number is widely considered to be a OSR RPG. Plus Kevin Crawford has quite a few fans of his own. If you were able to use Cities without Number as a chassis for a modern day urban fantasy, not only your effort will interest folks in the OSR, it would interest folks who are fans of Kevin Crawford's work.

As D20 Modern demonstrated, Sci-Fi, Cyberpunk, Urban Fantasy, and other related genres are all but a hop and a skip from each other. So, an RPG made for one can be readily adapted for one of the other genres above.

 

[robertsconley]

4) I always played this way and still do and don't need some new name for it or a bunch of come-lately tourists telling me stuff I already know and getting some of the details wrong.
- OK, fine. Good for you. I'm glad you're still having fun, but there's no need to be hostile about it. The OSR isn't really for you, because you don't "need" it, but you can still be an ally and share your wisdom and experience with the OSR kids got maybe help correct some of our misconceptions or avoid some pitfalls you already know about that we might not. We'd love to hear from you.

Or #4b (or #8) I always played this way and finally have a way to write and share/publish what I like without reinventing the damn RPG system wheel just to get it out there.
- In short, the whole OSR thing just makes it easier for those always chomping at the bit to publish or share something that doesn't involve writing a brand-new system.

7) I don't know or care about any of this stuff but want to be part of the OSR anyway because it seems more popular than what I'm into.
- Well, OK, I guess. But if you're going to call yourself OSR it would really help if you actually did follow some of its philosophy and didn't just latch onto it as a marketing tag and dilute its meaning and usefulness as a label for everybody else.

Back in 2012 to 2015, while I understood where this was coming from, I would have opposed this sentiment because I was then and still am an advocate of maximum openness. But now it is 12 years later and despite numerous attempts by individuals and groups to make the OSR mean something in particular or specific. It has remained firmly centered on classic D&D. Why? Despite the criticism and "anything by D&D sentiments, I feel classic D&D has a timeless appeal that continues to the present. That the OSR (all caps) has been at this long enough to see another generation of hobbyists grow to like classic D&D and its themes.

For me, this opinion was cemented with the advent of OSE. I think thing another major retro-clone would gain traction after Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, and OSRIC were established. But Gavin Norman and his crew managed to pull it off.

So while I understand your sentiment, I think that the "dilution" of what OSR means is the same today as it was in the early days when folks were fighting over who and what belong in TARGA along with the various forums.

That the combination of true creative freedom and the fact there are set of immutable out of print editions will continue to keep the OSR (all caps) centered on classic D&D. That the viral nature of the OSR/TSR alliteration will stymie alternative terms for the group of folks who play, publish, and promote classic D&D from taking hold.

 

[robertsconley]

DragonQuest simply stated: “Of course, conceptually most dungeons make no sense (for a variety of reasons, the most blatant being the space given for creatures to live in), but it is the simplest and least time-consuming type of adventure to design.”

Nice find! From Page 135 of the DQ 2e.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Back in 2012 to 2015, while I understood where this was coming from, I would have opposed this sentiment because I was then and still am an advocate of maximum openness. But now it is 12 years later and despite numerous attempts by individuals and groups to make the OSR mean something in particular or specific. It has remained firmly centered on classic D&D. Why? Despite the criticism and "anything by D&D sentiments, I feel classic D&D has a timeless appeal that continues to the present. That the OSR (all caps) has been at this long enough to see another generation of hobbyists grow to like classic D&D and its themes.

For me, this opinion was cemented with the advent of OSE. I think thing another major retro-clone would gain traction after Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, and OSRIC were established. But Gavin Norman and his crew managed to pull it off.

So while I understand your sentiment, I think that the "dilution" of what OSR means is the same today as it was in the early days when folks were fighting over who and what belong in TARGA along with the various forums.

That the combination of true creative freedom and the fact there are set of immutable out of print editions will continue to keep the OSR (all caps) centered on classic D&D. That the viral nature of the OSR/TSR alliteration will stymie alternative terms for the group of folks who play, publish, and promote classic D&D from taking hold.

I think there's a lot of truth in that but I think it's also the case that members of the broader old school revival have found it's better to go their own way because the perception of what the OSR is doesn't benefit them.

Marketing tags are one thing (partly caused by the fact Drivethru doesn't have a NSR or a broader old school revival tag to use) but it's noticable that Troika, Warlock!, Dungeon Crawl Classics etc. don't use it on their splash pages.

You've had the NSR which is increasingly being used. The B-OSR term was invented in a pretty tongue in cheek way, but equally most of the people interested in Maelstrom, Advanced Fighting Fantasy or Dragon Warriors are aware of it and identify with it more than the OSR.

And I think one big reason for that is that most RPGers see the term even more narrowly than you do. It's "straight retroclones of D&D", not even stuff like shifts of genre etc. (Which is one of the reasons DCC still gets argued about).

So while the OSR's claim that old D&D retroclones was *the* old school revival used to bother me it doesn't anymore. Because the broad old school has done well enough for that to no longer matter. It's what people think of when it's "new ideas and principles incorporated in old school gaming". Where somewhat unfairly, the OSR is just seen as "those people who just rewrite the rules to old editions of D&D".

Still think this means we get DCC, Apes Victorious & Mazes and Minotaurs though. You get OSRIC, OSE etc.

 

[JoeNuttall]

The capture at the end of A3 beginning of A4 was definitely something different than anything that I had seen before.

But it was technically just for when you ran it as a tournament.

But I also seem to recall some of the linear adventures having impassable doors or other things that forced the single path.

Yes, most tournament adventures were linear and there were a lot of these so that was quite common. There are vanishingly few non tournament linear adventures from that period though.

Things definitely got worse in the 1980s.

Yes, but more than that - for TSR over the course of about a year railroading went from almost non existent to being ubiquitous.

 

[carpocratian]

Yeah. The OD&D 1 gp = 1 xp for treasure was, excuse the pun, gold. It set the behaviour motivator as bypassing combat, instead of seeking out combat. And combat was often deadly for PCs. Modern milestone xp is similar, in that goals are set that don't require combat all the time. However I prefer if players get to set their milestone target as they play, rather than the GM handing them to players, or worse, keeping them secret until achieved.

If I'm running a game with levels and the players agree to milestone leveling, the agreement is usually that I let them level up when I think they have done enough for their characters to realistically be more skilled at the things they do. Everything counts, from interacting with NPCs to exploring, fighting, figuring out mysteries, building things, etc. If they are actively doing stuff where they get more practice at various skills and/or are learning new things, they are on the path to leveling up. They usually get a pretty good sense of roughly when they have done enough to level up.

I use slow leveling with all level-based games, so even if they opt to get experience the traditional way, it all works out the same. In those situations the experience they get is usually lower than what the books suggest and/or the actual accomplishments (winning a fight, finding treasure, etc.) are just a lot harder than normal. That is true of OSR games, 5E games, or whatever.

 

[Sharrow]

Or #4b (or #8) I always played this way and finally have a way to write and share/publish what I like without reinventing the damn RPG system wheel just to get it out there.
- In short, the whole OSR thing just makes it easier for those always chomping at the bit to publish or share something that doesn't involve writing a brand-new system.

Funnily enough, that was Ryan Dancey's goal with the SRD, OGL, etc. Put a system out there for everyone to use so creators could spend their energy on writing settings and adventures, and not on reinventing the wheel (and WotC could then rake in the money selling the bits of the system that weren't open, enjoy a bigger market that didn't have to create, etc.).

The problem being that 1) the system in question wasn't, in its base form, actually that good or flexible, and it took considerable trimming and hackling to get a core that was flexible, and 2) a lot of authors wanted things from a system that the base d20 SRD didn't provide, so they needed to 'write system' anyway, and that's easier if you start from a relatively simple base.

 

[ffilz]

But it was technically just for when you ran it as a tournament.

I guess I didn’t read carefully. In any case, I saw that and had a visceral reaction and set the module aside.

 

[LikelyArrow]

If I'm running a game with levels and the players agree to milestone leveling, the agreement is usually that I let them level up when I think they have done enough for their characters to realistically be more skilled at the things they do. Everything counts, from interacting with NPCs to exploring, fighting, figuring out mysteries, building things, etc. If they are actively doing stuff where they get more practice at various skills and/or are learning new things, they are on the path to leveling up. They usually get a pretty good sense of roughly when they have done enough to level up.

I use slow leveling with all level-based games, so even if they opt to get experience the traditional way, it all works out the same. In those situations the experience they get is usually lower than what the books suggest and/or the actual accomplishments (winning a fight, finding treasure, etc.) are just a lot harder than normal. That is true of OSR games, 5E games, or whatever.

Not that it's an issue in this case, but I think you're talking slightly past each other, because we've run into one of my pet peeves: the terms "milestone" can refer to two completely different things.

I'm pretty sure what DanDareGM was talking about is the original definition of "milestone xp" which IMO would have been better called "achievement xp" because it's about getting actual XP (not just leveling up) for accomplishing set goals, some of which are hopefully known in advance. It's akin to unlocking an achievement on Xbox and getting Gamerscore for it, except in this case it's experience points.

 

[carpocratian]

I'm pretty sure what DanDareGM was talking about is the original definition of "milestone xp" which IMO would have been better called "achievement xp" because it's about getting actual XP (not just leveling up) for accomplishing set goals, some of which are hopefully known in advance. It's akin to unlocking an achievement on Xbox and getting Gamerscore for it, except in this case it's experience points.

Ah, well, that wouldn't be the first time I've gone off on my own weird tangent. Never mind