OSR: what is it even

[JoeNuttall]

While both weren’t like the OSR until later in the decade it also wasn’t like classic D&D was in the early 2000s. Both had open content under open licenses at the time that was written.

With the open licenses they had some of the building blocks in place, but Rolemaster has never had an open license, but that didn't stop Against the Darkmaster being a MERP clone. T&T has never had a license or a clone, but has still had its own old school revival so I don't think either were really necessary.

When people whose rpg origins did not include D&D heard the term 'Old School Renaissance', they used to initially think of their rpgs from an earlier era.
People who started with D&D heard the same term, they naturally thought of their early D&D editions (the vast majority of rpgers).
Perhaps the more correct term for the current OSR could have been something like 'TSR-Revival', 'OTSR', 'ODDR' etc, but that horse has long bolted

I think the OSR movement caused lots of people to try other old games, for myself that was T&T, Star Frontiers, Marvel SuperHeroes, Call of Cthulhu, Runequest, Gamma World, Metamorphosis Alpha (all the original versions).

With such a generic name it's not surprising that OSR-influenced things have appropriated the name, but the trend I notice is that for established games which people are dusting off there is no real need to use the label and people tend not to, whereas for new games which need the exposure they seem to claim to be OSR on rather flimsy grounds!

 

[robertsconley]

With the open licenses they had some of the building blocks in place, but Rolemaster has never had an open license, but that didn't stop Against the Darkmaster being a MERP clone. T&T has never had a license or a clone, but has still had its own old school revival so I don't think either were really necessary.

The number of folks who are willing to take the risk of writing, publishing, and supporting a system to "clone" a system based on "game can't be copyrighted" can be counted on one hand. Especially given the examples of those who fucked it up and got removed from storefronts or subjected to a cease & desist.

In contrast, those who are willing to put into the work when there is open content to use are an order or two magnitude larger. Why? Because the boundaries of what is usable and what is not are much clearer. In the case of Runequest, Mongoose did the hard work of coming up with a Runequest clone and, more importantly, stuck with it with an entire product line. That clearly outlined for later folks of what Chaosium was willing to tolerate. Either by using the open content like Openquest or being in on the development of a Mongoose Runequest Edition as the authors, which led to Mythras.

With Cepheus, Jason Kemp accepted the risk and did the work to combine the Mongoose Traveller 1e SRD, D20 Modern, and the Traveller20 SRD to come up with an open content Traveller clone. And when Marc Miller and Mongoose declined to issue a C&D. Kemp's work became the foundation of a family of Traveller related RPGs like Hostile, and Sword of Cepheus.

As for T&T there is no thriving 3rd party market that I am aware of outside of fanzines.

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

Once the boundaries are established, then, more folks are willing to go the "game can't be copyrighted only their expression" route.

 

[AsenRG]

Yes, you are a terrible person and should feel bad

Eh, man, even I wouldn't go that far...

(Meaning, if I didn't know you're being facetious, I'd be PMing the mods right now to alert them that your account was stolen).

White lies 1E was OSR, I think S&W, based where Top Secret 1E is a unique percentile system. They redid White Lies and 2e is not OGL so I can’t comment on it

Thank you.

Does anyone know what is White Lies 2e? I see it's by DwD studios, which would suggest d00 lite...but they do have a spy system based on their d00 lite engine, which is Covert Ops (a rather nice system, BTW). So I'm simply not sure, and I don't own it, because OSR suggests classes and levels to me, and I don't have time for those in a spy game!

 

[Savage Schemer]

Eh, man, even I wouldn't go that far...

(Meaning, if I didn't know you're being facetious, I'd be PMing the mods right now to alert them that your account was stolen).

Thank you.

Does anyone know what is White Lies 2e? I see it's by DwD studios, which would suggest d00 lite...but they do have a spy system based on their d00 lite engine, which is Covert Ops (a rather nice system, BTW). So I'm simply not sure, and I don't own it, because OSR suggests classes and levels to me, and I don't have time for those in a spy game!

Covert Ops is their d100 lite system, which you noted. White lies was all the same themes in a d20 based game. First edition was built on Swords & Wizardry. When the OSR debacle hit, they reworked the game so that it's no longer a S&W game. It's now its own "engine," but the engine is still very much a d20 game in essence.

 

[AsenRG]

Covert Ops is their d100 lite system, which you noted. White lies was all the same themes in a d20 based game. First edition was built on Swords & Wizardry. When the OSR debacle hit, they reworked the game so that it's no longer a S&W game. It's now its own "engine," but the engine is still very much a d20 game in essence.

OK, thanks.

I think Rob has touched on this before, but the other issue is that there aren't the same conditions that required a renaissance in the way D&D did. Aside from a handful of stalwarts, old D&D pretty much had gone away pre OSR. And the new editions are different enough that it's arguable whether they're the same game.

Take something like Tunnels & Trolls. You could take a player from 1975, drop them into a 2024 game and it would be instantly recognisable. That's not really true of the difference between D&D editions.

The only real renaissance other lines have needed is new editions/supplements. Advanced Fighting Fantasy has seen a small resurgence again. New content (so I assume it sells well enough to justify that), a place for fan content with The Warlock Returns and games inspired by it like Troika and Warlock!. What it hasn't seen is a retroclone because there would be no point when the fanbase is happy with the new edition.

Also, a fair bit off stuff is happning off people's radars I suspect. We've actuallly seen solid growth in the En Garde! community with *gasp* some players under 40 getting involved and at least 8 current games running. (Small beans from a D&D perspective and not like the glory days of PBM, but good from our small pond perspective). But hardly anybody is going to be aware of that, probably because the lack of a commerical aspect gives people less motivation to really self promote like the OSR.

OTOH, take a Traveller player from the TNE edition, plop him or her in a T4 or T5 game, or even a Cepheus game, tell the group the new guy knows all the rules, and watch out what happens...


I mean, you are right for most games outside of D&D. Traveller editions are the only ones that approached the differences found in D&D, and I just find it amusing.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

As for T&T there is no thriving 3rd party market that I am aware of outside of fanzines.

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

That one's largely down to IP stuff. There used to be a much bigger third party market, but then Webbed Sphere bought it, sat on the property and did nothing with it and basically ignored questions from the community. I think a lot of people felt doing new content was too risky in that situation.

Now Rebellion own it and people are waiting for them to put out their promised policy on community content before really doing anything. They're way past the time they said it would be out (they said they'd put out a call for creators by the end of 2023) but honestly I'm not that worried. Rebellion can be glacial and their deadlines always feel more like vague aspirations. And they have way bigger IP fish they're handling, including the move of of the kid's comic Monster Fun from quarterly to monthly. I'm used to Rebellion but I can understand T&T people who aren't might be more concerned.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Update:

It's worse than I thought. Webbed Sphere removed already existing T&T third party content from Drivethru. Glad they've fucked off from T&T entirely now.

Anyone else had their 3rd party T&T stuff taken off DTRPG? | Vin's T&T TrollBridge

Hi all I had an email from the admin at DrivethruRPG saying they were deactivating my pay-what-you-want Ferverax GM adventure until Webbed Sphere can discuss new licensin

trollbridge.proboards.com

 

[Acmegamer]

Surely the last sentence negates the second? If there's good innovative content being put out, then no people aren't *just* republishing open source material. And I'd suggest that's a separate thing from your dislike of the D&D system. (In fact seeing what stuff like DCC have done with that system have made me interested in the D&D system again in a way I hadn't been since 1989).-+

Yup, rpgs like DCC Rpg, Shadow of the Demonlord and Shadowdark are three that actually pull me back enough to play those variants of D&D. Whereas I wasn't interested truly in D&D since the early to mid 1980s. Preferring Palladium Fantasy Rpg, RuneQuest/Brp, Traveller, Rolemaster and GURPS based mechanics systems. I did enjoy DnD 5e when it came out but quickly soured on it, which is where the gonzo fun of DCC Rpg comes in.

Honestly the whole constant need to label, gate keep or put into a certain positions which rpgs are what grows increasingly frustrating to me. I have no issue with defining an rpg and then discussing the pros and cons of the mechanics, layout, campaign setting and what we would like to see done better. I don't mind attempting to determine the overall tone and genre of the rpg, communicating what it is in other words so we can share that with others. My issue is that it frequently becomes soo fucking mind numbingly pedantic, rigidly opinionated that after a while with sub genres of sub genres and no that can't be OSR that I find myself wanting to scream into the void. Often the forest is lost while we stare at one fucking tree proclaiming what it is or isn't. In other words the joy is lost in the din of stupid.

 

[sharps54]

Yup, rpgs like DCC Rpg, Shadow of the Demonlord and Shadowdark are three that actually pull me back enough to play those variants of D&D. Whereas I wasn't interested truly in D&D since the early to mid 1980s. Preferring Palladium Fantasy Rpg, RuneQuest/Brp, Traveller, Rolemaster and GURPS based mechanics systems. I did enjoy DnD 5e when it came out but quickly soured on it, which is where the gonzo fun of DCC Rpg comes in.

Honestly the whole constant need to label, gate keep or put into a certain positions which rpgs are what grows increasingly frustrating to me. I have no issue with defining an rpg and then discussing the pros and cons of the mechanics, layout, campaign setting and what we would like to see done better. I don't mind attempting to determine the overall tone and genre of the rpg, communicating what it is in other words so we can share that with others. My issue is that it frequently becomes soo fucking mind numbingly pedantic, rigidly opinionated that after a while with sub genres of sub genres and no that can't be OSR that I find myself wanting to scream into the void. Often the forest is lost while we stare at one fucking tree proclaiming what it is or isn't. In other words the joy is lost in the din of stupid.

Defining something isn’t gatekeeping, the issue is there is no agreed on definition for OSR. Whatever definition @T. Fosterand robertsconley saw back when this started isn’t what the market is using now. Sadly the horse has left the stable and it isn’t coming back so while I agree trying to define if a game is OSR or not is pointless I don’t agree labels are automatically gatekeeping. If we call a game YZE is that gamekeeping or defining the rule system the game uses?

 

[Acmegamer]

Defining something isn’t gatekeeping, the issue is there is no agreed on definition for OSR. Whatever definition @T. Fosterand robertsconley saw back when this started isn’t what the market is using now. Sadly the horse has left the stable and it isn’t coming back so while I agree trying to define if a game is OSR or not is pointless I don’t agree labels are automatically gatekeeping. If we call a game YZE is that gamekeeping or defining the rule system the game uses?

I didn't say that it was. I mentioned it because it does happen. Thanks for making my point for me though. Again, there feels like much sucking the fun out of the hobby going on.

 

[DeadBob]

Whatever definition @T. Fosterand robertsconley saw back when this started isn’t what the market is using now.

Okay, so what is the current definition then?

That's the part that is eluding me.

 

[sharps54]

I didn't say that it was. I mentioned it because it does happen. Thanks for making my point for me though. Again, there feels like much sucking the fun out of the hobby going on.

Outside of these discussions I don’t use the term, I’ll refer TJ games by their systems or the parent system in the case of a clone or spin off. I agree these discussions can make one desire to bash their head into a wall.

 

[sharps54]

Okay, so what is the current definition then?

That's the part that is eluding me.

There is not one, that is the issue. Ask ten people and you’ll get eleven definitions

 

[sharps54]

Do you consider both Maze Rats and Zweihander OSR? DrivethruRPG does.

DriveThruRPG

preview.drivethrurpg.com

 

[robertsconley]

Defining something isn’t gatekeeping, the issue is there is no agreed on definition for OSR. Whatever definition @T. Fosterand robertsconley saw back when this started isn’t what the market is using now. Sadly the horse has left the stable and it isn’t coming back so while I agree trying to define if a game is OSR or not is pointless I don’t agree labels are automatically gatekeeping. If we call a game YZE is that gamekeeping or defining the rule system the game uses?

Gatekeeping means that things can be excluded. The end result of gatekeeping is that access to a work is limited in some way to a larger audience.

Conversely, if one is unable to limit the distribution of a work, then it is impossible for that individual to gatekeep. As far as the OSR is concerned, there are two individuals or entities in that position in 2024: DriveThruRPG and Wizards. DriveThruRPG because they own the dominant marketplace for RPG PDFs and Print On Demand books. Wizards because they are the copyright holder for the Open Game License and the classic editions.

Nobody else, inside or outside of the OSR, has the means to gatekeep another author and their work.

As for DriveThruRPG, the rise of the importance of crowdfunding and fulfillment web is means there is now an effective way independent of DriveThruRPG to sell and distribute RPG works.

As for Wizards, the OGL debacle means the importance of open content licenses has been underscored. Resulting in thriving communities around alternative licenses such as Creative Commons and ORC.

Plus, the OSR has diversified enough that if a future Wizards chooses to go after the close clones, the experience is there to implement the themes and philosophies represented by the classic editions in alternative systems.

None of the "worst case" scenarios are desirable but there are options for the OSR if any of them come to pass.

But ultimately, DriveThru and Wizards know their dominant position rests on a foundation that will be shaken if they really try to exercise the power they have. We saw that with Wizards and the OGL.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Do you consider both Maze Rats and Zweihander OSR? DrivethruRPG does.

DriveThruRPG

preview.drivethrurpg.com

I think the problem is that Drivethru has no more general "old school revival" tag for people to put. I'd be in favour of separating OSR and Old School Revival but I'm not sure that wouldn't be controversial among some OSR publishers who felt they were being pushed out of the old school revival tag.

 

[sharps54]

I think the problem is that Drivethru has no more general "old school revival" tag for people to put. I'd be in favour of separating OSR and Old School Revival but I'm not sure that wouldn't be controversial among some OSR publishers who felt they were being pushed out of the old school revival tag.

I personally think having separate OSR and Old School Revival tags would be confusing and the publishers that use OSR today would just select both for the product when they upload it

 

[AsenRG]

I personally think having separate OSR and Old School Revival tags would be confusing and the publishers that use OSR today would just select both for the product when they upload it

Probably, but at least there would be a tag for other Old School Revival publishers which aren't beholden to D&D mechanics. Who knows, that just might happen to increase the cross-polination...

I'm probably too optimistic, though. The more likely result is that the OSR publishers would double-tag their products, and then the sheer amount of their titles would push out the non-compatible titles.

 

[sharps54]

The frustrating thing is I like all types of games from Swords Without Master to Sword Path Glory so it isn’t like I’m trying to keep anything off the market.

Full disclosure I own but haven’t played Sword Path Glory. It is just that it is about as crunchy as you get.

 

[robertsconley]

Do you consider both Maze Rats and Zweihander OSR? DrivethruRPG does.

DriveThruRPG

preview.drivethrurpg.com

No, their respective authors chose to categorize their works as OSR. Daniel Fox even set up a community content program in such a way that it will be the only one displayed in that slot on the screen when OSR is selected.

But if you look at subcategories, like OSRIC and Swords & Wizardry, you will see that they have been policed for accuracy.

The difference is that OSRIC, S&W, and OSE are objective categories with an authority (the author of said systems) that can make a firm definition. While OSR isn't controlled by anybody so what in it depend on the author's decision to claim their work is OSR or not.

In my opinion, Daniel Fox, Zweihander RPG, is the only individual who has abused the OSR label. And it is not because of the actual RPG but because of what he does for marketing. In contrast, I am fine with Free League's Mork Borg being labeled as OSR.

However, just because I think Daniel Fox has abused the OSR label for marketing purposes doesn't mean I desire or want the power to exclude him from using the label. Instead, I will just say bullshit when I think there is bullshit going on, like with his community content program.

On the other hand, I have no problem with pointing out to DriveThru that something doesn't belong in the S&W or OSRIC categories. But it would have to be something very clear like the core book of a completely related RPG system.

For the most part, over the past 10 years or so since the OSR category existed, this is what I saw in how DriveThru handles things with the OSR category and its subcategories.

 

[robertsconley]

Probably, but at least there would be a tag for other Old School Revival publishers which aren't beholden to D&D mechanics. Who knows, that just might happen to increase the cross-polination...

There is a way; just develop a large enough audience (or people wanting to use the label), and DriveThru will add the subcategory.

 

[AsenRG]

There is a way; just develop a large enough audience (or people wanting to use the label), and DriveThru will add the subcategory.

View attachment 79722View attachment 79723

Yeah, I know:thumsbsup:. The post you quoted was me mulling whether such a category would even be useful, not about a way to introduce it - and frankly, I'm inclined to believe the answer is actually "no".

 

[Baulderstone]

In my opinion, Daniel Fox, Zweihander RPG, is the only individual who has abused the OSR label.

Warlock has classified it's rule system as OSR as well.

That's the real issue. They are classifying their rules system as OSR.

When I search for a game by rules system. I am expecting some degree of compatibility. A game with labelled with OSR as its rule systems needs to be usable, with minimal adjustment, with TSR-era D&D. Neither Warlock nor Zweihander does that, so they are misrepresenting their games on DriveThru.

You might be able to make an argument they are OSR in some philosophical design sense, but it you are classifying OSR as a rule system like DriveThru does, that system is D&D.

 

[sharps54]

And while some will argue OSR is a philosophy not a rule set good luck in changing DrivethruRPG from presenting is as one

 

[JoeNuttall]

Okay, so what is the current definition then?

That's the part that is eluding me.

OSR is any TSR version of D&D, or a clone thereof.

Defining something isn’t gatekeeping, the issue is there is no agreed on definition for OSR. Whatever definition @T. Fosterand robertsconley saw back when this started isn’t what the market is using now. Sadly the horse has left the stable and it isn’t coming back so while I agree trying to define if a game is OSR or not is pointless I don’t agree labels are automatically gatekeeping. If we call a game YZE is that gamekeeping or defining the rule system the game uses?

When I search ebay for MERP it returns results for The One Ring, Rolemaster, and random LOTR miniatures because the seller has randomly tagged it MERP just so it appears in related searches and they widen the net for suckers to buy it.

Similarly people mark stuff as OSR on DriveThru just so they can appear in searches by people who are looking for OSR on the assumption that if you're interested in old school D&D you might be interested in a Warhammer Knock-Off. Sellers only stop doing this when they think it will have a negative effect on sales, e.g. if they think their target audience hates OSR.

It would probably be better for the tags to be chosen by buyers instead of sellers.

 

[Toadmaster]

Ok. Time for an unpopular take.

“It’s really an old school revival or are people just taking advantage of good open source material and publishing it as their own?”

The principle that mechanics can’t be patented (only the expression trademarked) has led to a thousand OSR clones. Clones. Not brand new innovations. Just endless repetition of STR/DEX/CON/INT/WIS/CHA as if that was some holy grail.

Now we have had some good innovative content. Some as new takes on old material and some really clever. But that’s separate from the cloned mediocrity of the system.

Not a unique opinion, but in my opinion an uncharitable one often shared with people who dislike D&D and similar systems. There are many aspects to RPGs, you have rules, settings, adventures.

Mazes & Minotaurs is basically OD&D in mythological Greece, so yes the actual rules are not very original, but the setting is very different and the writing was creative in trying to make it look like a long lost game that came out alongside OD&D. Is it super original? Not at all, D&D + Greek Mythology both pretty standard. Did it do something different? Yep.

OSR or not there really is little truly new out there, the OSR is just a little more honest about its borrowing and uses that familiarity to its benefit. The RPG community has also become less litigious. In the early days TSR was quick to file on anybody trying the enter the RPG market. These days things have gotten pretty relaxed, and legal action is usually due to some pretty blatant IP infringement. Most legal cases actually seem to come from outside the RPG community, usually from IP holders looking for settings that stray to close to their IP.

It has a question mark but that doesn't mean it isn't a take.



Well, that is the question. I guess I see too much where it's not homage, it's just milking a market. I see a lot where it's not a hot take. And I see a heap where...if they'd done a little more....it could have been great.

(for example, I was very disappointed that Over The Wall didn't deliver what it promised. It's a D&D reskin and there wasn't much to learn from it)



You are a meanie.

If all you got from BTW is reskinned D&D, then just move on, the OSR is not your thing. Sure there is some clear inspiration from D&D but there is far more there. I'm guessing you see Rolemaster as just reskinned D&D as well.

 

[T. Foster]

Okay, so what is the current definition then?

That's the part that is eluding me.

If I were to venture a guess at a currently-applicable definition (which is different than what the definition would have been in either 2004 or 2014) it would be something like:

“A marketing term used to denote games and products that attempt (or at least purport) to recreate or evoke the mechanics, aesthetics, or perceived playstyle of classic (20th century) Dungeons & Dragons and/or other role-playing games of that same vintage. Such games are typically positioned in opposition to the mechanics and perceived playstyle of the current (5th) edition of Dungeons & Dragons through one or more of (1) “lighter” rules than place more emphasis on judgment calls and spot rulings by the GM than fixed precedents, (2) a “sandbox” approach that eschews pre-defined stories and plots, and/or (3) an increased emphasis on random elements in both the creative (character and adventure generation) and procedural aspects of the game, together with a defiantly “indie/DIY” and creator-driven spirit and aesthetic in implicit or explicit rejection of the increased corporatization of official D&D.”

I don’t expect anyone to agree with it, but that’s pretty much how I see the current state of what’s calling itself OSR (at itch and DriveThruRPG, on Reddit, on various Discord servers, etc).

 

[sharps54]

OSR is any TSR version of D&D, or a clone thereof.

And I can point you to an interview where Matt Finch calls Mothership OSR.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Warlock has classified it's rule system as OSR as well.

That's the real issue. They are classifying their rules system as OSR.

When I search for a game by rules system. I am expecting some degree of compatibility. A game with labelled with OSR as its rule systems needs to be usable, with minimal adjustment, with TSR-era D&D. Neither Warlock nor Zweihander does that, so they are misrepresenting their games on DriveThru.

You might be able to make an argument they are OSR in some philosophical design sense, but it you are classifying OSR as a rule system like DriveThru does, that system is D&D.

It's an ancient argument but I'd argue the real issue starts way earlier than that with the first person who announced that OSR stood for "old school revival/renaissance". Because Warlock! and even Zweihander do fit that definition. That horse bolted years ago, but it is what has caused all of these kind of issues.

The easiest of course would be if people could just list their system as "original D&D "or "B/X" D&D. That would make everyone happy apart from unfortunately HasbroWizards who have the veto here. But I don't really blame Warlock or even Zweihander for not respecting the monopoly of D&D heads on that particular definition.

Hell, if Finch had called his manifesto "how to play old D&D" instead of "A Primer for Old School Gaming" I don't think we'd be seeing the same issues now.

 

[Mosker]

T&T has never had a license or a clone, but has still had its own old school revival so I don't think either were really necessary.

For a host of reasons, T&T has always been dreadful at attracting new fans (perhaps with the exception of the Corgi solo-era attracting Fighting Fantasy/gamebook fans) and this continues perhaps to a greater extent in the newer incarnations [insert 500 words on KS, M!M! editions, and the excellent but barely supported third party games] *.

That said, I always viewed Deluxe T&T as a love letter to the long time fans. It was made for them/us. Not new players.

An analogy: the CW Arrowverse (Flash, Arrow, Supergirl) had their Crisis crossover. I have a friend who was a steady Arrow viewer but didn't know the outside lore or watch the other shows. He almost dropped the series during Crisis because the episodes weren't for him, they were for fans of (and from) the 1980's who went "squee!" at every single easter egg, cameo, reference...


*Glass houses, Dave. Why aren't you running it at local conventions or pushing harder to get TrollsZine out there or saving the world and curing cancers?

 

[robertsconley]

Hell, if Finch had called his manifesto "how to play old D&D" instead of "A Primer for Old School Gaming" I don't think we'd be seeing the same issues now.

It not much an issue. Today as it was in 2010, OSR is a useful and often fun shorthand for conversation. But as far as marketing goes you had to do the work to get your name or brand name known in order for folks to know what the work was going to be about. It is a poor decision to leave it at "I support B/X D&D". It was a poor decision in 2010 to leave it at "I support B/X D&D". Or OSR, or AD&D, or whatever.

There were big thematic differences between Carcosa, my Majestic Wilderlands, Labyrinth Lord, and Lamentations of the Flame Princess despite the nominal interoperability of the system itself. Differences that were present from the very beginning.

 

[Baulderstone]

It's an ancient argument but I'd argue the real issue starts way earlier than that with the first person who announced that OSR stood for "old school revival/renaissance". Because Warlock! and even Zweihander do fit that definition. That horse bolted years ago, but it is what has caused all of these kind of issues.

The easiest of course would be if people could just list their system as "original D&D "or "B/X" D&D. That would make everyone happy apart from unfortunately HasbroWizards who have the veto here. But I don't really blame Warlock or even Zweihander for not respecting the monopoly of D&D heads on that particular definition.

Hell, if Finch had called his manifesto "how to play old D&D" instead of "A Primer for Old School Gaming" I don't think we'd be seeing the same issues now.

Purely to be argumentative, I could say that WFRP clones aren't OSR as it didn't come along until the second half of the '80s. I feel like we were fully out of that old school era by the time WFRP came along. Ultimately though, that's just my own definition, and I'm generally fine with people having their own view of what is old school.

The only reason I got into this thread at all, is that it does matter to me when you are labelling what system a game uses. The game system field on DriveThru is there to tell you what system a game uses, not your philosophical leanings. It would be more debatable if OSR was listed in a general tag section, but it's listed as the system. People can poke at edge cases, but when someone buys something because it uses the OSR system, they are looking for D&D, or at least, something that can be mistaken for D&D if you squint.

And I can point you to an interview where Matt Finch calls Mothership OSR.

I've played Mothership. It's about as Old School as Unknown Armies. It's also only designed for short term play, which is a very modern idea. We maxed out character advancement in a few sessions.

And to be clear, I don't think that's a bad thing. Ongoing campaigns about constantly stumbling on horror in space can get contrived. I'm perfectly happy starting with a new character every time I play. It's a good game. I'd just need to hear a very solid argument for why it is old school.

 

[Endless Flight]

…Matt Finch calls Mothership OSR.

 

[DanDareGM]

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!

Fully agree

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.

Cheers

*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.

Yep

(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!)

I get right into Rory's Story Cubes. I tend to roll 3 at a time when an encounter is called for to help me frame the encounter.

Story Cubes

www.storycubes.com

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

On the Drivethru tags issue they're just a fucking mess in general tbh.

I was looking for historical games earlier and steampunk were some of the less obviously ridiculous suggestions.

 

[T. Foster]

I’m okay with WFRP being categorized as old-school because even though it was released in 1986 it felt like kind of a throwback: it had classes (of a sort) and alignments and kitchen sink races and a kind of wonky system based on WFB stat-lines that wasn’t at all elegant in the way that other games of that era were at least beginning to strive towards. I feel like it’s more spiritually akin to games from c. 1980 like DragonQuest, Stormbringer, TFT, and Rolemaster than games more contemporary with its release like GURPS, Pendragon, Ars Magica, and WEG Star Wars. As we were growing disenchanted with AD&D in the late 80s, WRRP was a strong challenger for us as it gave a similar dopamine hit.

So I at least wouldn’t object to counting a game based on WFRP as OSR. I feel kind of the same way about the Palladium games - they were released after what’s generally considered to be the “old school” era but they felt even at the time more like a throwback to that era than they did like their contemporaries.

Which is part of why “old school” has always been more about style and approach than chronology alone to me. Aces & Eights was released in 2007 and felt 100% like an old school game to me.

 

[TristramEvans]

The principle that mechanics can’t be patented (only the expression trademarked) has led to a thousand OSR clones.

I think you're completely off base on that one. That principle led to a trickle of published fantasy heartbreakers.

It was the OGL specifically that led to the thousand OSR clones, which is a contract where you give up rights in exchange for WotC allowing you to do what you could legally do anyways w/o being subjected to a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[Voros]

Purely to be argumentative, I could say that WFRP clones aren't OSR as it didn't come along until the second half of the '80s. I feel like we were fully out of that old school era by the time WFRP came along. Ultimately though, that's just my own definition, and I'm generally fine with people having their own view of what is old school.

The only reason I got into this thread at all, is that it does matter to me when you are labelling what system a game uses. The game system field on DriveThru is there to tell you what system a game uses, not your philosophical leanings. It would be more debatable if OSR was listed in a general tag section, but it's listed as the system. People can poke at edge cases, but when someone buys something because it uses the OSR system, they are looking for D&D, or at least, something that can be mistaken for D&D if you squint.

I've played Mothership. It's about as Old School as Unknown Armies. It's also only designed for short term play, which is a very modern idea. We maxed out character advancement in a few sessions.

And to be clear, I don't think that's a bad thing. Ongoing campaigns about constantly stumbling on horror in space can get contrived. I'm perfectly happy starting with a new character every time I play. It's a good game. I'd just need to hear a very solid argument for why it is old school.

Yeah I like Mothership a lot but don't know where this impulse to declare it OSR comes from except for some people OSR seems to mean 'games I like.'

I suspect it comes down to Sean McCoy having buddies and interest in the OSR, even if little of Mothership reflects the OSR. Essentially, he was internet buddies with a well known narcissist (and probably regrets it now).

Other than Mothership McCoy focuses on boardgames through Tuesday Knight Games and his former podcast.

 

[Voros]

There's this odd blog post by Chris McDowall who designed the very good Into the Odd and the interesting Bastionland where he makes a - to me - torturous argument as to why he believes Bastionland is OSR.

Which to me again provokes the response: who cares?

 

[lategamer]

If all you got from BTW is reskinned D&D, then just move on, the OSR is not your thing.

There wasn’t anything Earthsea about it. Which was the draw. But hey, I bought it. Read it (well, skimmed the system) and it sits with all of the other games in my drive thru digital graveyard.

Sure there is some clear inspiration from D&D but there is far more there. I'm guessing you see Rolemaster as just reskinned D&D as well.

No, but that’s probably because
1. It isn’t re-skinned D&D (who’s being uncharitable?)
2. My first boxed multi-person RPg experience was MERP. My second was D&D and goodness was it a step down. Like I was moving from Lego Technik to Duplo.