Principia Apocrypha: Principles of Old School RPGs

[Voros]

This free compilation of OSRish advice from Ben Milton (Questing Beast, Maze Rats) and Steven Lumpkin (West Marches) now features the wonderful art of Evlyn Moreau of Chromatic Soup.

Quite solid advice but nothing that will probably blow away an experienced player/DM and there is some of the usual unquestioned OSR revisionism of an imagined past. But it does avoid Finch's smarmy tone and special pleading without coming close to topping Jason Cone (also linked at the bottom of the blog post!).

Free and worth it just for the art.

 

[AsenRG]

It's an interesting read, that's for sure.

 

[Voros]

Yeah I don’t think I disagreed with any of the advice and coming from younger designers there is less chauvinsim than usual when discussing the OSR.

Too often OSR talk reminds me of a guy who broke up with his girl (3e) but can’t stop talking about her and comparing her to his new lover (OSR) who ‘is way better.’

 

[AsenRG]

Yeah I don’t think I disagreed with any of the advice and coming from younger designers there is less chauvinsim than usual when discussing the OSR.

Too often OSR talk reminds me of a guy who broke up with his girl (3e) but can’t stop talking about her and comparing her to his new lover (OSR) who ‘is way better.’

"And she turns tricks I haven't seen in a while! I feel free to experiment with her!"
"Her", in this case, meaning the OSR, of course!

 

[Voros]

Ben Milton has posted on his blog here with an new proposed name for some of the OSR who are less wedded to D&D mechanics: 'Adventure Game.' There's also the more political 'Sword Dream' or Second Wave Of Roleplaying Design - DIY Rules Everything Around Me but to discuss its motivations would probably drag us into too much political wrangling.

The issue with both for me is that the term 'adventure game' already refers to a certain kind of retro text-based videogames and for Sword Dream, which is at least appealing in its lack of earnestness, the claim to be the second wave of rpg design is both amazingly D&D-centric and ahistorical.

Stuart's artpunk is still out there too.

But then the sloppy use of 'old school' and pretentious claims of a 'renaissance' in the original OSR name hardly made it that accurate or good of a term to begin with.

I don't really care about categorizations and tribalism around playstyles or games but I do find it interesting in that this 'existential' pondering in the OSR reflects a few things to me: the younger generation of designers trying to stake out their own ground, which I always think is a good things even if it just leads to a new orthodoxy that needs to be challenged; the OSR moving away from the centralized and fairly peaceful online community of G+; Zak's final disgrace in the OSR and various other more political currents.

 

[Ladybird]

Ben Milton has posted on his blog here with an new proposed name for some of the OSR who are less wedded to D&D mechanics: 'Adventure Game.' There's also the more political 'Sword Dream' or Second Wave Of Roleplaying Design - DIY Rules Everything Around Me but to discuss its motivations would probably drag us into too much political wrangling.

I'm really amazed SWORD DREAM wasn't already taken. That's a great acronym.

 

[clash bowley]

Evlyn Moreau is amazing!

 

[Baulderstone]

Ben Milton has posted on his blog here with an new proposed name for some of the OSR who are less wedded to D&D mechanics: 'Adventure Game.' There's also the more political 'Sword Dream' or Second Wave Of Roleplaying Design - DIY Rules Everything Around Me but to discuss its motivations would probably drag us into too much political wrangling.

The issue with both for me is that the term 'adventure game' already refers to a certain kind of retro text-based videogames and for Sword Dream, which is at least appealing in its lack of earnestness, the claim to be the second wave of rpg design is both amazingly D&D-centric and ahistorical.

If you want to nitpick the terms, there is another issue with using the term "adventure game" for games less wedded to D&D mechanics.


It's right there on the cover of the Moldvay Basic, possibly the most popular edition of actual D&D in the OSR.

 

[Endless Flight]

I like the term “adventure game” for any RPG that deals with adventure. That’d be a great way to package a G.I.Joe RPG, for example. People can be confused by the term “roleplaying game”, even though it’s second nature to all of us.

 

[Spinachcat]

The revisionist history obsession in the OSR is truly laughable, and its not just the young ones. Plenty of old timers demand that their experience must have been universal - especially those who only played with one group.

However, once you get past the wimpfest intro, it's a decent primer for gamers new to the OSR.

Adventure Game is a perfectly good title and TSR used it a lot in the 80s.

 

[Grelan]

Why does it even need a label? Just make and run your games, write your blogs, talk to others about it and let that be that?

 

[Justin Alexander]

If your goal is to reduce confusion by creating a new term for what you're doing then:

1. You should make sure you're not just creating a new standard and increasing confusion. (Which I suspect they are here.)

2. You should DEFINITELY not use a term that's already in common usage to mean something different, which "adventure game" definitely is.

3. You probably shouldn't use a term that only makes sense if you read a manifesto about it, which is definitely what "SWORD DREAM" is.

"SWORD DREAM" is, to be frank, extra dumb because the backronym itself is confusing. The OSR already has a concept of "second wave" or "new wave" design: Dragonlance, the heavily plotted scenarios that followed in its footsteps, and the mechanical design trends which followed that direction in scenario design.

So, in an OSR-context, seeing "Second Wave Of Roleplaying Design" does not evoke what it's attempting to evoke. It actually invokes the exact opposite of its intended meaning.

 

[Armchair Gamer]

Adventure Game is a perfectly good title and TSR used it a lot in the 80s.

Even into the 90s--Marvel SAGA used it, and the variation "Dramatic Adventure Game" was used for the underappreciated Dragonlance: Fifth Age. The latter is a term I've been tempted to hang on to, but I've got a sentimental attachment to that game that has outlasted my souring on Dragonlance as a whole.

 

[Bunch]

Why does it even need a label? Just make and run your games, write your blogs, talk to others about it and let that be that?

Because it speeds things up. Humans don't live long enough to evaluate each item entirely on it's own merits before deciding to take an action like purchasing something.

I listened to a NPR discussion with an author on stereotypes and it boiled down to "When used appropriately they save you time" vs "When used inappropriately, they are very bad".

But grouping comes about because it saves time. I generally don't care for "Party Games" or "Story Games". It's not a perfect mechanism for saving me time but seeing something labeled either of those two I'll just skip and only reconsider if someone I know who knows me says I should reconsider.

 

[Voros]

Why does it even need a label? Just make and run your games, write your blogs, talk to others about it and let that be that?

I agree, I use to be a music writer and came to realize that the obsession with categorization, particularly in genres like punk, electronica and metal had more to do with social currents and Freud's notion of the 'narcissism of small differences' than anything musical. It was the sociologist and music critic Simon Frith's writing on pop and punk that brought that home to me.

So now when I see discussions of nomenclature instead of engaging with the trainspotting I'm more disinterested and ask 'why is this important to those involved?' and 'what does this tell us about what is happening in the subculture?'

3. You probably shouldn't use a term that only makes sense if you read a manifesto about it, which is definitely what "SWORD DREAM" is.

Not sure about this, there's such a long tradition of manifestos in art and even LARP design.

And does the term OSR actually make any sense to most people unless they've read Finch's polemic or preferably Cone's more insightful proposals? I still see people online ask 'what is this OSR thing?' and get directed to Finch.

 

[Spinachcat]

Why does it even need a label?

Marketing.

Defining the OSR isn't meaningful for your home games, but if you are trying to sell products, you need a community gathered around a defined concept. That's the value of the OSR brand.

 

[Necrozius]

Whenever people start a “movement” with a slogan, manifesto or acronym naming convention, my spider senses start to tingle.

High School taught me harsh lessons. I have trust issues.

Edit: the booklet was a good read!

 

[Dumarest]

I'm opposed to any and all movements except those of the bowels. Whenever I see this stuff, I just see people staking claims and trying to prop themselves up as figureheads. I'm just gonna keep doing what I've always done, thanks.

 

[Endless Flight]

 

[Dumarest]

Adventure Game is a perfectly good title and TSR used it a lot in the 80s.

​

 

[Justin Alexander]

And does the term OSR actually make any sense to most people unless they've read Finch's polemic or preferably Cone's more insightful proposals? I still see people online ask 'what is this OSR thing?' and get directed to Finch.

Old School Renaissance is a pretty clear cut invocation of common English words/phrases: "Old school" meaning something old-fashioned or pre-modern. "Renaissance" meaning a revival or renewal of interest in something. The words describe the thing that they're labeling.

"Sword dream" is supposed to refer to (checks notes) "the emerging mishmash of artpunk modules, new mechanics, and blogs" evolving out of the OSR. It's not that the words "sword" and "dream" don't get me into the ballpark here, it's that they aren't even getting me into the same city.

 

[Chris Brady]

I'm pretty sure everyone knows my opinion on this so called 'OSR'. It's unnecessary, it's all D&D, play it as you want, how you want. This divisive tribal divisions is unnecessary.

 

[AsenRG]

Old School Renaissance is a pretty clear cut invocation of common English words/phrases: "Old school" meaning something old-fashioned or pre-modern. "Renaissance" meaning a revival or renewal of interest in something. The words describe the thing that they're labeling.

"Sword dream" is supposed to refer to (checks notes) "the emerging mishmash of artpunk modules, new mechanics, and blogs" evolving out of the OSR. It's not that the words "sword" and "dream" don't get me into the ballpark here, it's that they aren't even getting me into the same city.

Yeah, I agree. Between that and the mislabelled "second wave", the acronym is pretty much useless as it is
Too bad, since it's a nice acronym.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows my opinion on this so called 'OSR'. It's unnecessary, it's all D&D, play it as you want, how you want. This divisive tribal divisions is unnecessary.

And I'm pretty sure everyone knows I disagree with C Chris Brady on that account. The good examples of OSR are better than the game that spawned them!

 

[Chris Brady]

And I'm pretty sure everyone knows I disagree with C Chris Brady on that account. The good examples of OSR are better than the game that spawned them!

I'm honestly a little confused. It's still D&D, and if you like it, keep playing it your way. I'm saying it doesn't need a label and that your way to play the game, is just that: Your way.

Just cuz I currently prefer 5e, doesn't mean I won't happily try out other versions (except for 3.x and it's derivatives, I am so done with that one), nor will I ever attack anyone for preferring another edition than I do.

In my experience, making labels divides peoples, and I don't think we need that.

 

[Voros]

Old School Renaissance is a pretty clear cut invocation of common English words/phrases: "Old school" meaning something old-fashioned or pre-modern. "Renaissance" meaning a revival or renewal of interest in something. The words describe the thing that they're labeling.

"Sword dream" is supposed to refer to (checks notes) "the emerging mishmash of artpunk modules, new mechanics, and blogs" evolving out of the OSR. It's not that the words "sword" and "dream" don't get me into the ballpark here, it's that they aren't even getting me into the same city.

I agree Sword Dream is not clear or very good although I do like the Wu Tang reference.

 

[3rik]

There's also the more political 'Sword Dream' or Second Wave Of Roleplaying Design - DIY Rules Everything Around Me but to discuss its motivations would probably drag us into too much political wrangling.

I saw this on Twitter... WTF

 

[Necrozius]

K so I read a few tweets that were rhetorically asking if RPGs, presumably ones that are offshoots of D&D, can be made without the “baseline” assumption of violent conflict with arms.

I do think it’s possible within the constraints of the OSR rulesets (and, as we all know, it’s already being done by other RPGs out there).

I’ve decided to take up the challenge, and will start up a thread here within the next few days. An experiment in genuine good faith, not sarcasm. For the record, I prefer games with sword fights and decapitations, but I want to flex my creative muscles).

The principles will be (first draft):

- relationships with antagonists, not destruction; can antagonists and rival factions be satiated or converted to the protagonists side? Where are you positioned on the faction map?

- no armed conflict; you will never roll to stab, crush or shoot anyone. Conflicts will be resolved in other ways: persuasion, guile, evasion, or even just plain old intimidation and charm. Failure still causes problems, but not bloody ones

- hp is a measure of stress, strain, reputation and morale. It can be lowered by losing face in a social scene, having a tough time climbing that wall, being unable to avoid falling boulders. It can be raised by rest, camaraderie and awesome successes.

- alignment is not who you are, but how others perceive you. Good and evil measure selflessness or selfishness, law and chaos measure how much to stick to the rules or how much you are “by the book”

I’d like to conduct this thought experiment.

 

[Stevethulhu]

K so I read a few tweets that were rhetorically asking if RPGs, presumably ones that are offshoots of D&D, can be made without the “baseline” assumption of violent conflict with arms.

I do think it’s possible within the constraints of the OSR rulesets (and, as we all know, it’s already being done by other RPGs out there).

I’ve decided to take up the challenge, and will start up a thread here within the next few days. An experiment in genuine good faith, not sarcasm. For the record, I prefer games with sword fights and decapitations, but I want to flex my creative muscles).

The principles will be (first draft):

- relationships with antagonists, not destruction; can antagonists and rival factions be satiated or converted to the protagonists side? Where are you positioned on the faction map?

- no armed conflict; you will never roll to stab, crush or shoot anyone. Conflicts will be resolved in other ways: persuasion, guile, evasion, or even just plain old intimidation and charm. Failure still causes problems, but not bloody ones

- hp is a measure of stress, strain, reputation and morale. It can be lowered by losing face in a social scene, having a tough time climbing that wall, being unable to avoid falling boulders. It can be raised by rest, camaraderie and awesome successes.

- alignment is not who you are, but how others perceive you. Good and evil measure selflessness or selfishness, law and chaos measure how much to stick to the rules or how much you are “by the book”

I’d like to conduct this thought experiment.

The baseline assumption of D&D seems to have changed from a small unit combat game, to get in a loot the treasure with as little combat as necessary, and back to combat. This is purely based on reading the rules, rather than how people actually play. Which can be two very, very different beasts.

 

[Armchair Gamer]

A Ghastly Affair takes the old-school mechanical baseline and applies it to pure Revolution-era Gothics, with social and moral conflicts emphasized over physical ones. It might be worth a look.

 

[AsenRG]

I'm honestly a little confused.

Having discussed such matters in the past, that's not news!

It's still D&D,

And I just told you it's not. You're overlooking the differences, for whatever reasons. Doesn't mean they're not there, or are insignificant.

I'm saying it doesn't need a label and that your way to play the game, is just that: Your way.

That's true...but it would be true even if we were to run the same system RAW, using the same setting and the same sourcebooks. So I don't think stating it has any impact on the argument.

Just cuz I currently prefer 5e, doesn't mean I won't happily try out other versions (except for 3.x and it's derivatives, I am so done with that one), nor will I ever attack anyone for preferring another edition than I do.

Here we agree. Whatever game you like, have fun playing or running it!

In my experience, making labels divides peoples, and I don't think we need that.

It was answered already that labels are useful for marketing.
On my side, I'd add that labels are also useful for communicating information. Whether it's for discussing games on a forum, or for deciding whether to buy a game or not, they tend to serve that goal.
Of course, if you don't see a value in them, don't use them. But in practice, you did - in your previous two posts, even...you just used "D&D" as a label!

 

[Necrozius]

Stop laughing at MEEEEEEE

I mean it: we should try to come up with something that works both practically AND theoretically so we're not just some other legion blogger patting themselves on the back for expressing shallow, high level ideas.

 

[CRKrueger]

"Sword dream" is supposed to refer to (checks notes) "the emerging mishmash of artpunk modules, new mechanics, and blogs" evolving out of the OSR. It's not that the words "sword" and "dream" don't get me into the ballpark here, it's that they aren't even getting me into the same city.

Agreed, plus the fact that it's really just a political agenda/attempt at social control in disguise.

 

[Voros]

I’d suggest we keep the political aspect of Sword Dream out of the discussion. More significant anyway I believe is all this as a sign of generational shift in D&D, which honestly we haven’t really been through too often.

In terms of a non-violent OSR game...that seems the common error of trying to make every possible game off of the D&D chassis rather than starting from scratch.

Humza from Hydra Coop refreshingly has spoken about the influence of RQ, WFRP and other games on HC. Good to see as I think a continuing issue in the OSR is lack of knowledge of games beyond D&D. Not an issue of course if it sticks to fantasy D&D variations but if its starts to branch out into other game design I think trying to make every game/genre a variation of D&D was already done for decades and was largely a waste of time.

 

[Baulderstone]

I shouldn't need to say this, but griping about political agendas is against the "no politics" rule.

 

[Justin Alexander]

I’d suggest we keep the political aspect of Sword Dream out of the discussion.

I recognize the necessity of that given the board rules, but I'm not sure it's actually possible at this point to have a meaningful discussion about SWORD DREAM without the political components. Its raison d'etre is a political statement.

I do think it might be interesting/useful to have a term describing the post-Renaissance phase of OSR-derived design without the misleading "second wave" part of the backronym. That's why I'm proposing RUBY EXPRESS: Revolutionary Unexplored Byways of Yesteryear Expressed Periodically Regarding Entertaining Systems and Settings

(No, I'm not serious.)

Okay, here's my serious recommendation:

Neoclassical Old School

NOS



We're going to supercharge the RPG hobby!

 

[Armchair Gamer]

Would a revival of things like Chivalry & Sorcery, Rolemaster, etc. be Old School Baroque?

 

[Voros]

I recognize the necessity of that given the board rules, but I'm not sure it's actually possible at this point to have a meaningful discussion about SWORD DREAM without the political components. Its raison d'etre is a political statement.

I do think it might be interesting/useful to have a term describing the post-Renaissance phase of OSR-derived design without the misleading "second wave" part of the backronym. That's why I'm proposing RUBY EXPRESS: Revolutionary Unexplored Byways of Yesteryear Expressed Periodically Regarding Entertaining Systems and Settings

(No, I'm not serious.)

Okay, here's my serious recommendation:

Neoclassical Old School

NOS

View attachment 9732

We're going to supercharge the RPG hobby!

Zzachrov Kowalski’s rule set is called Neoclassical Geek Revival.

 

[Ladybird]

In terms of a non-violent OSR game...that seems the common error of trying to make every possible game off of the D&D chassis rather than starting from scratch.

I mean, yeah, but that's not necessarily a bad thing if it's a fun exercise in it's own right. "Fantasy heartbreakers" are only such because the creators don't know that they're actually being derivative, after all.

 

[Voros]

I recognize the necessity of that given the board rules, but I'm not sure it's actually possible at this point to have a meaningful discussion about SWORD DREAM without the political components. Its raison d'etre is a political statement.

Cyberpunk was a very political sf genre and we discuss it here all the time with no gripping. Of course I think its politics are (mistakenly) thought to be safely time bound to the 80s.

 

[Baulderstone]

K so I read a few tweets that were rhetorically asking if RPGs, presumably ones that are offshoots of D&D, can be made without the “baseline” assumption of violent conflict with arms.

I do think it’s possible within the constraints of the OSR rulesets (and, as we all know, it’s already being done by other RPGs out there).

I’ve decided to take up the challenge, and will start up a thread here within the next few days. An experiment in genuine good faith, not sarcasm. For the record, I prefer games with sword fights and decapitations, but I want to flex my creative muscles).

The principles will be (first draft):

- relationships with antagonists, not destruction; can antagonists and rival factions be satiated or converted to the protagonists side? Where are you positioned on the faction map?

- no armed conflict; you will never roll to stab, crush or shoot anyone. Conflicts will be resolved in other ways: persuasion, guile, evasion, or even just plain old intimidation and charm. Failure still causes problems, but not bloody ones

- hp is a measure of stress, strain, reputation and morale. It can be lowered by losing face in a social scene, having a tough time climbing that wall, being unable to avoid falling boulders. It can be raised by rest, camaraderie and awesome successes.

- alignment is not who you are, but how others perceive you. Good and evil measure selflessness or selfishness, law and chaos measure how much to stick to the rules or how much you are “by the book”

I’d like to conduct this thought experiment.

Another angle for a non-violent OSR game would be to focus is mostly on exploration, perhaps using something like Jeff Rients XP for discovering things. You can still have plenty of peril in exploration without violence, and older editions of D&D spend about as much time on exploration as they do on combat, so it answers the question of why you are even using the system.

You could even combine this with your relationship-based approach, exploring, meeting people and trying to forge alliances. It is basically fantasy Star Trek.