OSR: what is it even

[lategamer]

Wikipedia defines it:

Broadly, OSR games encourage a tonal fidelity to Dungeons & Dragons as it was played in the first decade of the game's existence—less emphasis on predefined endings, and a greater emphasis on player choice determining the fate of characters. OSR Games provide play that wrong decision can easily become lethal for characters and do not guarantee satisfying endings to character arcs. Characters live and die by player choice as opposed to the story's needs.

So, I'm not understanding how the games themselves are OSR and not just the scenarios. I mean, I've always played everything sandbox, I do lean into the rule of cool but that includes character death and sacrifice. In many cases the story is made by linking the dots backwards.

OSR feels more like a marketing term like "organic", "authentic", "hand crafted", "real corinthian leather" than anything of actual substance.

By the definition above, Monopoly and Heroquest board games are OSR. So it reads like OSR is anti-Railroad? But but but...Railroad scenarios are a staple of old school games...

I'm so confused.

 

[sharps54]

The OSR is...

A blog dedicated to roleplaying games, with a focus on Old School Revival gaming

latenightzen.blogspot.com

 

[Nick J]

Wikipedia defines it:


So, I'm not understanding how the games themselves are OSR and not just the scenarios. I mean, I've always played everything sandbox, I do lean into the rule of cool but that includes character death and sacrifice. In many cases the story is made by linking the dots backwards.

OSR feels more like a marketing term like "organic", "authentic", "hand crafted", "real corinthian leather" than anything of actual substance.

By the definition above, Monopoly and Heroquest board games are OSR. So it reads like OSR is anti-Railroad? But but but...Railroad scenarios are a staple of old school games...

I'm so confused.

Published railroad scenarios in D&D didn’t really start until Dragonlance, so that’s not exactly true.

As to what the term OSR even means now, I’m not entirely sure? Early on it was just a loose community of people that coalesced around the notion of playing earlier versions of D&D and a banner to publish new material, then it seemed to morph into a ton of people publishing their own heartbreakers. Then some people tried to market semi adjacent games which weren’t exactly clones. Finally a few giant assholes showed up, picked big fights with other assholes on the internet, it got weirdly political and the so-called “community” fractured into a bunch of splinters and I kind of stopped paying attention.

 

[DeadBob]

So, I'm not understanding how the games themselves are OSR and not just the scenarios. I mean, I've always played everything sandbox, I do lean into the rule of cool but that includes character death and sacrifice. In many cases the story is made by linking the dots backwards.

OSR feels more like a marketing term like "organic", "authentic", "hand crafted", "real corinthian leather" than anything of actual substance.

By the definition above, Monopoly and Heroquest board games are OSR. So it reads like OSR is anti-Railroad? But but but...Railroad scenarios are a staple of old school games...

I'm so confused.

I think you may be missing a couple of points.

First, this:

I mean, I've always played everything sandbox

If you've always played everything sandbox (and sandbox to the same degree that OSR and adjacent folks mean it, which tends towards uber-sandbox), then you may well be missing that OSR was at least somewhat of a reactionary (not in any specific political sense) movement against another sort of play that was very common. I associate the reacted-against style that which was typified by White Wolf Games of the early 90s (which was itself a reaction against the style of play that OSR fans dig from the 70s and early 80s).


As for the railroading part...

Sorta? A lot of older modules presumed, IMO, that players wanted to be involved in whatever the adventure was about, and if you had a player (or players) who were seeking a more sandbox type play, it could create a great deal of friction.

This was not helped when sandbox loving players then expressed their problems with the modules boundaries in the worst way: In-character troll behavior.

Who'd have thunk that young nerds might not have the best communication skills to express their preferences?

To me. OSR is about, and I mean this with love, Guilt Free Murderhoboing with an emphassis on challenge. IN GNS terms, it's about loving the G part and expressing it through use of mechanics/rules and player/G style common to 1970s/early1980s play, but doing it knowingly and voluntarily, rather than trying to beat that stuff into something else because you didn't have other options available easily.

 

[AsenRG]

Published railroad scenarios in D&D didn’t really start until Dragonlance, so that’s not exactly true.

I think someone had spotted an earlier example in a discussion on this board, but can't find the reference.


What the OSR is to me: a group of people whom I can borrow non-system ideas from.

 

[lategamer]

Published railroad scenarios in D&D didn’t really start until Dragonlance, so that’s not exactly true.

That's not my memory but ok.

Finally a few giant assholes showed up, picked big fights with other assholes on the internet, it got weirdly political and the so-called “community” fractured into a bunch of splinters and I kind of stopped paying attention.

I think you may be missing a couple of points.

This is a common theme in my life.

you may well be missing that OSR was at least somewhat of a reactionary (not in any specific political sense) movement against another sort of play that was very common. I associate the reacted-against style that which was typified by White Wolf Games of the early 90s

So, more about metaplot?

As for the railroading part...
Sorta? A lot of older modules presumed, IMO, that players wanted to be involved in whatever the adventure was about, and if you had a player (or players) who were seeking a more sandbox type play, it could create a great deal of friction.
This was not helped when sandbox loving players then expressed their problems with the modules boundaries in the worst way: In-character troll behavior.

Huh, that's an interesting perspective. I have to say that for most part, slavish engagement with the plot is more of a GM issue than a player one. I'm a player in one group that is perfectly happy for us to spend three sessions roleplaying and another group where the Keeper expresses frustration that we are in Session 6 of this intro adventure and people on the internet tend to finish it in three!!!!

To me. OSR is about, and I mean this with love, Guilt Free Murderhoboing with an emphassis on challenge. IN GNS terms, it's about loving the G part and expressing it through use of mechanics/rules and player/G style common to 1970s/early1980s play, but doing it knowingly and voluntarily, rather than trying to beat that stuff into something else because you didn't have other options available easily.

Ah, that explains it well. I've been doing it 'wrong' all along as I'd say that (in that paralance) G is the weakest part of my repetoire. I'm much more focused on N...and slightly less with S. Thank you for explaining that point of view.

 

[Endless Flight]

It’s a nostalgia-driven marketing term…and there’s nothing wrong with that.

 

[DeadBob]

So, more about metaplot?

I wasn't really thinking about metaplot at all when I wrote that. I started with VtM (and WWtA) before metaplot became a big thing.

I was thinking more that the "fictional stuff", the fluff, the setting, the classes, whatever, were nice to have. It was nice to have some setting stuff.
It was nice to have some character background and personality.

But ya didn't need a lot. If it was slightly better that a surface level mishmash of Conan/Middle Earth/Whatever, you were really doing stellar work. Give us a motivation for why we're here now and then let's get to work facing the challenge of this dungeon/module. Because that's the fun bit.

That's not my memory but ok.

The Slavers module and Ravenloft both kinda dumped you in a situation and told you "Deal with it" until you'd dealt with it. I seem to recall a few other modules that were similar. More than a few had some kind of set up to describe why your party was together, where you were this time, and pointed you, with the equivalent of a glowing neon arrow towards the main adventure (even Keep on the Borderlands if I recall correctly. Maybe B1 as well).

One thing that someone, ages ago, pointed out which I thought was insightful s that, whatever other criticisms old-time D&D may deserve, at least design-wise it created a good core motivation in a way some other, later games didn't: Go out and level up by recovering loot.

Most other games tended to be kind of ambiguous about a lot of what players and their characters were meant to be focusing on exactly by default.

 

[lategamer]

I wasn't really thinking about metaplot at all when I wrote that. I started with VtM (and WWtA) before metaplot became a big thing.
I was thinking more that the "fictional stuff", the fluff, the setting, the classes, whatever, were nice to have. It was nice to have some setting stuff.
It was nice to have some character background and personality.

OK. I think I get what you mean. I do think that having a little more than "Lawful Evil Human Fighter with an axe" is good though.

The Slavers module and Ravenloft both kinda dumped you in a situation and told you "Deal with it" until you'd dealt with it. I seem to recall a few other modules that were similar. More than a few had some kind of set up to describe why your party was together, where you were this time, and pointed you, with the equivalent of a glowing neon arrow towards the main adventure (even Keep on the Borderlands if I recall correctly. Maybe B1 as well).

Hmmmm I don't think I get it after all. These (slaver, ravenloft) are 'in media res' beginings and being sandbox isn't exclusive of that.

I can't really articulate why in media res is better or worse than 'you're part of the Sobaki troop of Emperor Piotr investigating the uprisings of peasants in the far eastern provinces of the Empire. You've got an order to travel to Ortorodh and arrest the Mer'. Mea culpa.

One thing that someone, ages ago, pointed out which I thought was insightful s that, whatever other criticisms old-time D&D may deserve, at least design-wise it created a good core motivation in a way some other, later games didn't: Go out and level up by recovering loot.

You're right and while you describe that as a "good" motivation, that might be why I trend towards loathing D&D

 

[LikelyArrow]

The real OSR is the friends we made along the way.

 

[robertsconley]

Wikipedia defines it:


So, I'm not understanding how the games themselves are OSR and not just the scenarios. I mean, I've always played everything sandbox, I do lean into the rule of cool but that includes character death and sacrifice. In many cases the story is made by linking the dots backwards.

OSR feels more like a marketing term like "organic", "authentic", "hand crafted", "real corinthian leather" than anything of actual substance.

By the definition above, Monopoly and Heroquest board games are OSR. So it reads like OSR is anti-Railroad? But but but...Railroad scenarios are a staple of old school games...

I'm so confused.

So the foundation of the OSR is the fact that three individuals (two of them working together) figured out that if you take the D20 SRD, omitted the newer mechanics, what left is but a hop and a skip from a classic D&D edition. Then they coupled that with a dose of "the idea of game mechanics can't be copyrighted but their expression can."


Stuart Marshall, and Matt Finch worked together to create OSRIC, and Chris Gonnerman wrote Basic Fantasy. They both released around 2006. Also during this time more and more supplemental material (adventures, settings, etc.) was being released for the classic edition along with Troll Lord Games Castle & Crusade.

Castle & Crusade wasn't a clone but it was design to use AD&D adventure "as is". Basically designed so that the outcome of a 4th level party encountering three ogres would have the same range of results as it would in AD&D 1e.

But above three individual and their friends didn't like that C&C wasn't a clone and so many their own take.

At first this was controversial and everyone expected to Wizards to bring down the ban hammer. All three authors took proactive steps to minimize what Wizards could do. Either by involving attorneys or in the case of Stuart Marshall publishing OSRIC in the UK first.

However by 2007 this didn't happen and it was becoming clear that it wouldn't happen. Labyrinth Lord (Proctor) and Swords & Wizardry (Finch) came out and by 2008 the OSR started picking up steam.

As for the term OSR see this blogpost I wrote in 2009.

Where the Hell the Old School Renaissance came from?

This the post where it first appeared written by

Spoiler

Guest

The populatity of none d20 systems is again growing with WFRP selling second only to WoTs D&D. CoC and GURPS have also seen a slight revival in their market share. Compare this to the decrease in sales of d20 material over the last year (although still high). Over production and over stock is leading many online stores to slash prices. An old school renaissance could be on the horizon. C&C is ahead of the game for the moment but this won't remain the case for long. Already Green Ronin are toying with the idea of going rules lite and have put True20 out to RPG publishers for settings an ideas.

From 2005, it use started to spread. Rather its abbreviation OSR started to take off as it was fun alliteration on TSR the company that originally published D&D. It use was probably cemented in everybody's mind with the brief run of the OSR store front on Lulu.

OSR feels more like a marketing term like "organic", "authentic", "hand crafted", "real corinthian leather" than anything of actual substance.

<snip>

I'm so confused.

The problem is that people don't like nebulous idiocentric creative movements. There is a strong drive to box it up neatly without having understand its nuances.

But it actually quite simple. Understanding the origin of the OSR is key to understanding the OSR today. Look at the three individual involved with the first retro-clone. They had an idea about how to support their favorite system with a formal system (Basic Fantasy) or reference (OSRIC) and went it ahead and did it legally by using the available open content.

The key takeaway here isn't the fact that classic D&D editions was the focus. By the fact three individual did this themselves on their own (and with the help of friends) without most of the usual trappings of game publishing. Basic Fantasy and OSRIC are what they are because of the judgment calls of these three and their supporters.

The central theme of the OSR from then until now, is individual creators deciding for themselves what to do with the classic edition system and/or themes. Then using the advances in digital technology, and communication to publish or share something using the internet to distribute the resulting work.

All these things are part of the OSR

• sandbox
• rule of cool
• character death and sacrifice
• anti-railroad

Along with many more but they don't define it. What defines the OSR are the creative decisions made by each author. Each with their own take and mix.

The result can be maddeningly nuanced but that how it is.

So why isn't the OSR about anything?
Because the barriers for publishing or sharing are ludicrously low.

• Creatively you don't have to reinvent the wheel following the example of OSRIC and Basic Fantasy.
• Digital software has developed to the point where professional tools are inexpensive to acquire and easier to learn.
  Distribution is no longer bound by physical space as the Internet developed.
• Print on Demand allow small print run to be economically feasible.
• Advertising through the internet/social media while still work allow a greater reach for the investment then it was possible through traditional methods.
• The initial focus on classic D&D meant a potentially inserted audience many times greater than you would otherwise have with a novel system.
• The IP of classic D&D was partially available through judicious use of the D20 SRD. And later expanded as the number of retro-clones expanded. Although to be clear some of the IP is still off-limits to the present.
• There are no dominant company owning the IP that the OSR uses or setting the tone of the use of the open content. For example the OSR doesn't have anything like the situation with Evil Hat and Fate. Or Pinnacle and Savage Worlds.
• OSR is not controlled as a trademark by anybody

Then around 2015, the OSR market expanded enough that there was an audience for non D&D systems that catered to the themes of D&D to thrive. This was given a boost by the marketing runup for D&D 5e part of which catered to fans of the classic edition.

Throughout this the OSR has remained centered on two things the creative decisions of individual authors and the classic editions of D&D and its themes.

Basically what I do with the Majestic Fantasy RPG, Majestic Fantasy Realms is not the same as Raggi does with Lamentation of the Flame Princess, or what Finch does with Swords & Wizardry, or what Kelsey does with Shadowdark, or what Gavin Norman does with Old School Esstentials, or what Macris does with Adventurer, Conqueror, and King although we all intersect in different ways.

The best way to look at the OSR is to look at what an author does. Except that you are not going to get any better answer than it something a author choose to do, and that is related in some way to a classic D&D system or theme.

Which classic system or theme?

All of them and more that were not considered back in the day.

Wrapping this up.
I wrote this back in 2009 it still true today.

To me the Old School Renaissance is not about playing a particular set of rules in a particular way, the dungeon crawl. It about going back to the roots of our hobby and see what we could do differently. What avenues were not explored because of the commercial and personal interests of the game designers of the time.

Hope this helps answer your questions.

 

[robertsconley]

It’s a nostalgia-driven marketing term…and there’s nothing wrong with that.

While nostalgia is part of the OSR, now that we are 18 years into this with no signs of it flagging it is a bit more than that.

 

[LikelyArrow]

The OSR is...

A blog dedicated to roleplaying games, with a focus on Old School Revival gaming

latenightzen.blogspot.com

I got

The OSR is made up of posing art-wonks playing an original ruleset that everyone agrees 'just feels' OSR (by which they mean their characters get killed a lot) with eight college students who still think this is 5E and are 'led' by a demented group who argue that Cops 'n' Robbers is the original RPG, but only if you didn't let girls play but actually led by a millennial cult sifting the errors from millions of furiously typed forum comments for prophecy with the goal of… sorry, only the even secret-er cabal knows that.

Sounds about right.

 

[Endless Flight]

While nostalgia is part of the OSR, now that we are 18 years into this with no signs of it flagging it is a bit more than that.

Nostalgia can sell for a long time. My favorite property has been doing it for about 30 years.

 

[DeadBob]

OK. I think I get what you mean. I do think that having a little more than "Lawful Evil Human Fighter with an axe" is good though.

Yeah, but you don’t need a lot more, yknow?

Not like 8 pages of backstory and a prelude VtM style.

In media res is fine, right up til one of the players says No! And engages in adventure avoidance because Sandbox!

You're right and while you describe that as a "good" motivation, that might be why I trend towards loathing D&D

it isn’t about liking the motivation . It’s about tD&D having an obvious, straightforward, easily explained core activity.

Have you never run into a game with all sorts of deep background but when you ask the very basic question: yeah but what do we do?, the answer is Anything!

I hate to say it, but that isn’t necessarily as awesome a thing as people have thought it was on many occasions.

 

[Simlasa]

Nostalgia can sell for a long time. My favorite property has been doing it for about 30 years.

But is it nostalgia for people who weren't around at the time... or never played those games?
OSR games I play are nothing at all like the games I played when I first got into RPGs, but I like them for their degree of simplicity and lack of concern over 'balance' and, generally, fatalistic, tone (meaning that characters don't have massive layers of plot armor).
I don't particularly care about gaming history and never much worried if we were 'doing it right'.

 

[Fenris-77]

On top of nostalgia, OSR games done well are slick focused games that do what they intend quite well. Not a lot of fluff or cruft. In short, they are fun to play and often easy to get into. This is especially true when set next to the sprawling edifice that is the current 5E catalogue.

 

[robertsconley]

Nostalgia can sell for a long time. My favorite property has been doing it for about 30 years.

Yes that is true for many things, but at this point it no longer a driver for why folks publish, or play for the OSR. To be clear nostalgia is a thing within the OSR and somewhat important at the beginning. But now 18 years in, many older gamers have sadly passed on or life circumstances have changed for them. The OSR has now developed a life of it own on its own terms and merits.

Basically morphed into a typical RPG publishing niche like Savage Worlds, BRP/Mythras, Traveller, etc. The major difference being there is no dominant publisher setting the tone.

 

[LikelyArrow]

Yes that is true for many things, but at this point it no longer a driver for why folks publish, or play for the OSR. To be clear nostalgia is a thing within the OSR and somewhat important at the beginning. But now 18 years in, many older gamers have sadly passed on or life circumstances have changed for them. The OSR has now developed a life of it own on its own terms and merits.

Basically morphed into a typical RPG publishing niche like Savage Worlds, BRP/Mythras, Traveller, etc. The major difference being there is no dominant publisher setting the tone.

On top of this, some of the most passionate fans of OSR and other old-school games I've known didn't get their start in the hobby until well into the 00's or even 10's. They generally started with WOTC editions of D&D (usually 4e or 5e), then got exposed to the OSR and older games and decided they liked those better.

 

[robertsconley]

On top of this, some of the most passionate fans of OSR and other old-school games I've known didn't get their start in the hobby until well into the 00's or even 10's. They generally started with WOTC editions of D&D (usually 4e or 5e), then got exposed to the OSR and older games and decided they liked those better.

That has been my observation since the late 2010s. Overall I think that is excellent and will ensure that the OSR will continue to exist long after the original group stop being involved for whatever reason.

Provided that the OGL doesn't get legally spiked, the nice thing it can go in cycles as the original setup can be easily replicated by a new generation who wants to work on it.

 

[Exploderwizard]

The OSR is kind of like porn in that you know it when you see it. The OSR label is slapped on so much stuff these days that you have to look over the product and see if lives up to the label.

 

[Fenris-77]

Something else that the OSR has going for it as a community and design space is that many of the games are quite low-entry in terms of designing your own stuff for them (and having that work be broadly compatible in more than one system). That same broad compatibility also open up the range of what's useable for a given OSR GM well beyond the actual named game they 'started' with.

 

[Nakana]

When I first stumbled upon “OSR” it seemed to have a small set of criteria to emulate the play style of D&D pre 2E:

• Classes and Levels
• Little to no skills
• No unified mechanic (each class had its own rules for which dice to roll for what)

Of those, the unified mechanic was a gray area. That’s what I thought OSR was. It seems for a while I was correct. But now it seems I was wrong all along?

Now, because it seems more of a marketing buzzword than actual style of play, and people tend to argue what it is vs what it isn’t, I don’t care.

All I know is that OSRIC, OSE, and Basic Fantasy are all part of a category of games — whatever the fuck that category is called.

 

[Endless Flight]

But is it nostalgia for people who weren't around at the time... or never played those games?
OSR games I play are nothing at all like the games I played when I first got into RPGs, but I like them for their degree of simplicity and lack of concern over 'balance' and, generally, fatalistic, tone (meaning that characters don't have massive layers of plot armor).
I don't particularly care about gaming history and never much worried if we were 'doing it right'.

I didn’t play D&D either as a kid. I was into supers games. I think the term “OSR” is a nostalgia label. The games themselves don’t need the OSR.

 

[Fenris-77]

You aren't wrong about there being an 'OSR playstyle" as there very much is, or was, a set of precepts there. Not every game currently branded as OSR necessarily follows them of coure, which is frustrating, but it's there. Rulings over rules etc etc. There's a manifesto somewhere.

 

[robertsconley]

The OSR is kind of like porn in that you know it when you see it. The OSR label is slapped on so much stuff these days that you have to look over the product and see if lives up to the label.

As I said in another thread there never been a time when you could rely on OSR as a marketing label. You always had to look over the product to see if it is suitable. Again it because most of it was highly idiosyncratic depending on the author's creative vision.

But to be fair, there always been groups of similarly themed products. So once you developed a sense of who is who in whatever slice of the OSR you are looking at. Finding material you like becomes easier.

 

[robertsconley]

There may be a Quick Primer for Old School Gaming among other things but what THE OSR playstyle always has to have the caveat, "It depends on who you are specifically talking about". I do not talk about or give weight to the same things as Finch, Raggi, Norman, Macris, Dionne and others do. Although we all overlap and agree on some things.

For example, many OSR RPGs are consider lite system and rely a lot on referee rulings. However I have pointed out most referees I know rule consistently. When you stack up how they ruled that you find that at the end of the day they have just as nuanced of a system (to a point) as ones where it mostly written out at the beginning.

But I also pointed out that starting with most of it all written out is not necessarily an advantage if the first edition or version of the system. Until it wrung out with actual play, you can't be sure if the system will work as designed.

Creating a system through ad-hoc ruling has the virtue of it working in actual play. But if it doesn't have a consistent design it likely be harder to learn thus not as good for something you want to share or publish.

 

[Endless Flight]

All I know is that OSRIC, OSE, and Basic Fantasy are all part of a category of games — whatever the fuck that category is called.

Yeah, they are all roleplaying games!
No labels needed. Labels make me itch.

 

[Fenris-77]

Labels as rough guides to content are fine. No different than going to a particular section in Chapters looking for a book like that other book you have. You still have to give the new book the once over to make sure its what you want. Labels as prescriptive are gatekeepy bullshit.

 

[Cessna]

I have to laugh at the idea that old-school rpgs were never railroad-y or were open sandboxes.

The typical dungeon adventure started with "you're standing at the entrance of the dungeon, what do you do next?"

 

[robertsconley]

The typical dungeon adventure started with "you're standing at the entrance of the dungeon, what do you do next?"

I think what kind of adventure a dungeon is depends whether railroad, sandbox, or in-between depend on how it is design. As pointed out this article by Melan.



The dungeon I think was D&D's killer app. There are not many adventure setups that can be explained as easily as a dungeon. And at the same are open to expansion to make it more interesting and complex as the referee gain experiences.

 

[Endless Flight]

I have to laugh at the idea that old-school rpgs were never railroad-y or were open sandboxes.

The typical dungeon adventure started with "you're standing at the entrance of the dungeon, what do you do next?"

I think there has been some romanticism about the early era of gaming, absolutely, at the expense of gaming in the 90s and 00s.

 

[Cessna]

I think what kind of adventure a dungeon is depends whether railroad, sandbox, or in-between depend on how it is design. As pointed out this article by Melan.

View attachment 79211

The dungeon I think was D&D's killer app. There are not many adventure setups that can be explained as easily as a dungeon. And at the same are open to expansion to make it more interesting and complex as the referee gain experiences.

Yeah, but what if you say "no, I don't want to go into the dungeon?"

Remember, the old D&D Basic red-boxed sets literally did not even address this possibility. "Outdoor adventures" were only addressed in the blue Expert box. Sure, I know, you can just make things up, wing it, etc. But the fact that D&D Basic as written could not even conceive of the idea that you wouldn't want to go into the dungeon and might want to go wander through the woods instead doesn't make it seem like an open sandbox to me.

 

[David Johansen]

The wilderness was more dangerous than the dungeon, it's safer to go in.

 

[Edgewise]

It's helpful to recognize the origins of the OSR in a discussion like this (see robertsconley's excellent post above). It was a reaction to D&D 3e and 4e. That's where a lot of the early/core edicts come from, like "heroes, not superheroes," "the answer is not on your character sheet," "rulings not rules," etc. They are, in the way they are phrased, an overreaction to trends in D&D at the time, which is why they often confuse recent arrivals.

Despite the fact that this was a specific reaction, and a movement towards older editions of D&D, these principles were broadly applicable to RPGs, and were also partly co-opted as reactions against things like storygames, White Wolf, etc.

With the OSR established as its own distinct style, not a mere reaction, it has attracted a broader audience, become a marketing term, and largely lost sight of its original purpose. These are not necessarily bad things (although the marketing stuff is not to my taste), but are just the inevitable changes that come with success.

Now, the term has less and less meaning. I'd say it's useful to keep the original edicts of tracts like the Old-School Primer in mind, because they are instructive in a fun mode of role-gaming. Understanding the origin and purpose of these screeds is valuable to considering them in their proper context. Beyond that, I feel like the OSR has served its purpose, and has almost ceased to exist as a community or movement.

 

[ffilz]

It's not railroading to have an assumption about play. Otherwise "I'm running a fantasy campaign inspired by Robert E. Howard's Conan" would be a railroad if the GM didn't allow a player to create a Jedi Master.

 

[SavAce]

Every term is a fuzzy constellation of ideas, but you get the overall idea if you hang around the scene of folks who used the term or read some of their writings, and are honestly trying to pick up what they're laying down. One popular forum activity is to take a term and attempt to eliminate the fuzziness, or conversely to deconstruct it and point towards possible contradictions, etc. and declare the term useless. Every term is vulnerable to this, to some degree.

 

[sharps54]

Every term is a fuzzy constellation of ideas, but you get the overall idea if you hang around the scene of folks who used the term or read some of their writings, and are honestly trying to pick up what they're laying down. One popular forum activity is to take a term and attempt to eliminate the fuzziness, or conversely to deconstruct it and point towards possible contradictions, etc. and declare the term useless. Every term is vulnerable to this, to some degree.

I think you’ll find a lot more in common with PbtA games or Mork Borg games or even the various games based on the The Black Hack than you will with games labeled OSR.

 

[robertsconley]

"Outdoor adventures" were only addressed in the blue Expert box. Sure, I know, you can just make things up, wing it, etc. But the fact that D&D Basic as written could not even conceive of the idea that you wouldn't want to go into the dungeon and might want to go wander through the woods instead doesn't make it seem like an open sandbox to me.

The problem with a dungeon isn't whether it can be a sandbox or not. The problem is that being a underground maze it has a particular creative feel. Which is why we have adventures set in the wilderness, city, undersea, outer planes, and so on.


If you going to teach a novice who knows nothing about tabletop RPGs then the dungeon is a good place to start.

 

[robb]

But the fact that D&D Basic as written could not even conceive of the idea that you wouldn't want to go into the dungeon and might want to go wander through the woods instead doesn't make it seem like an open sandbox to me.

I think this is skipping the fact these were all covered in OD&D. Basic was designed as a learning game and it makes sense to reduce game-play to an easy core - especially when it is the killer app, as Robert Conley just said. Expert added the wilderness. The full system is B/X, not just B.