OSR: what is it even

[lategamer]

Then make a character that will want to go into the dungeon. We've been playing Masks of Nyarlathotep recently, and the Keeper told us that at one point there is GM advice there that says pretty much the same thing.

We are in the midst of Masks and there is the obligatory suspension of disbelief after the first Mythos related encounter. Our GM is definitely old-school but we did enjoy the alarm on his face when we started talking about the next flight out of Peru...

Point is....

We kept to the story but it was extra work for the GM as we decided to go by steamship and bus rather than train. He had to improv a bit, do some quick googling for images while we roleplayed.

I started a debate before about the definition of sandbox and I think I'm happy with my outcome from that. A sandbox is something you can imagine anything you want within - but all sandboxes have edges. As a matter of consideration and good play, figure out where the edges are (the story the GM wants to tell, the limits of the ruleset, the theme) and inside those limits, do what you want.

This means leaving the sentient telekinetic broccoli-fish character on the back burner for a 1920s CoC game. It means not shouting Yelp and running to the airport at the first glimpse of the mythos. And it means not badgering the GM for a out of genre weapon (what do you ean I can't have claymores).

That said - none of this has really anything to do with Old Games or the alleged OSR (and much of what's claimed about OSR really does smack of 'real leather').

I said on another forum about how I was lucky enough in school to fall in with a bad crowd. There was some social caste in our RPG club - there were the D&D folks, the CoC folks and the Consulting Detective folks. Getting to move in the upper echelons was kinda seen as a big deal*. And then there were the kids who couldn't afford the books so we played with dice and imagination. It really taught me about improv and rule of cool.

*my anecdote about Consulting Detective was surprising the GM on the one time I was invited to play by using my amazing deductive abilities to root out the killer. He asked "How did you know to look for those things". I replied "I read a lot of Batman comics".

 

[robb]

I think PBTA has huge amounts in common with OSR. Role enforcement being a major one.

This is true but there are also fundamental differences. IMO the key one is PbtA's use of No Myth style play whereas OSR tends to blorb-style play. This makes the feel of actual play very different. In imperfect GNS terms it makes OSR push Gamism and PbtA Narrativism.
Both are fiction-first but IMO the above difference is crucial and leads to lots of miscommunication and acrimony.

 

[lategamer]

This is true but there are also fundamental differences. IMO the key one is PbtA's use of No Myth style play whereas OSR tends to blorb-style play. This makes the feel of actual play very different. In imperfect GNS terms it makes OSR push Gamism and PbtA Narrativism.
Both are fiction-first but IMO the above difference is crucial and leads to lots of miscommunication and acrimony.

Ok, Explain like I'm in my fifties.

"No Myth" and "Blorb"

*in terms of GNS, I see both OSR and PBTA to be very gamist and the narrative legend of PBTA to be overstated.

 

[PolarBlues]

Oh my. let's see if I remember this. No Myth applies to games where the improv nature is totally out in the open. So in a No Myth murder mystery, the GM doesn't know who the killer is any more than the players and the players know the GM doesn't know this. The GM just provides genre appropriate details rather than what you might consider a genuine clue, and together with the players weave a plausible story. It's term from The Forge.

This differs from a more traditional GM who might have a loose idea of the backstory but will behind the scenes will improvise, change and maybe even retcon undislosed "facts" during play still giving the impression that everything was planned all along.

And of course is entirely different from the GM who, possibly running a published scenario, where are the facts are nailed down in advance.

I think that's right...

Never heard the term Blorb before.

 

[sharps54]

I think PBTA has huge amounts in common with OSR. Role enforcement being a major one.

Until you hit OSR games without classes like Knave.

 

[lategamer]

Until you hit OSR games without classes like Knave.

Well, not all old (as opposed to old school) games had classes but Knave is unapologetic in that you're a jack of all trades. I hear the 'warrior-wizard' and 'rogue' of T&T calling. I mean, Fighting Fantasy was classless but I'd have strong words for anyone who didn't think it was 'old school'.

 

[sharps54]

Well, not all old (as opposed to old school) games had classes but Knave is unapologetic in that you're a jack of all trades. I hear the 'warrior-wizard' and 'rogue' of T&T calling. I mean, Fighting Fantasy was classless but I'd have strong words for anyone who didn't think it was 'old school'.

Sure but as someone that really enjoys older games I personally separate the idea of old school games from OSR. I would much rather grab an older game and play it as close to rules as written (which isn’t always how we played back in the day) than to pick up an OSR game.

 

[sharps54]

That’s why the question of AD&D 2E being OSR is kind of weird, I don’t really consider the original games OSR, they are just the games we played back then. Are Daredevils or Bushido OSR? I don’t think so but they are old school games and that is my jam.

 

[lategamer]

.I would much rather grab an older game and play it as close to rules as written (which isn’t always how we played back in the day) than to pick up an OSR game.

I find that fascinating

To my mind, OSR (that I've been reading) trends towards a RAW acceptance of more modern concepts and a trend of fudging stuff that isn't RAW.

Bushido isn't OSR, it's just OLD. Superhero 2044 isn't OSR, it's just OLD.

 

[sharps54]

I find that fascinating

To my mind, OSR (that I've been reading) trends towards a RAW acceptance of more modern concepts and a trend of fudging stuff that isn't RAW.

Bushido isn't OSR, it's just OLD. Superhero 2044 isn't OSR, it's just OLD.

So what makes AD&D 2E or T&T OSR? How does Traveller fit in?

 

[lategamer]

So what makes AD&D 2E or T&T OSR? How does Traveller fit in?

Well, I'm with you. LBB Traveller is just OLD (and the GOAT)
AD&D2e is just old. T&T is just old.

To put it another way.

The 23rd Letter 1st Edition (1996) is old.
The 23rd Letter, 3rd Edition (2024/5) is not old school. It's a modern game. It's based on tropes from the 1970s and 1980s.

When I read OSR, what I know is that there will be a barebones system and an assumption of familiarity with STR DEX, CON, INT, WIS, CHA (which is the brand recognition of "real corinthian leather") And it's a real struggle to keep reading.

 

[Mankcam]

And then there were the kids who couldn't afford the books so we played with dice and imagination. It really taught me about improv and rule of cool.

Yeah, that was me, heh heh

 

[DeadBob]

Oh my. let's see if I remember this. No Myth applies to games where the improv nature is totally out in the open. So in a No Myth murder mystery, the GM doesn't know who the killer is any more than the players and the players know the GM doesn't know this. The GM just provides genre appropriate details rather than what you might consider a genuine clue, and together with the players weave a plausible story. It's term from The Forge.

This differs from a more traditional GM who might have a loose idea of the backstory but will behind the scenes will improvise, change and maybe even retcon undislosed "facts" during play still giving the impression that everything was planned all along.

And of course is entirely different from the GM who, possibly running a published scenario, where are the facts are nailed down in advance.

I think that's right...

Never heard the term Blorb before.

Blorb is basically the last one. No/absolute minimum improvisation. No Quantum Ogre re-arrangement allowed. Where improvisation is of necessity, procedurally generated detail, often with random roll tables, is preferred.

(I have personal issues with blorb and its genesis the way other people feel about mention of GNS, so I hope that explanation is fair and neutral)

 

[PolarBlues]

Blorb is basically the last one. No/absolute minimum improvisation. No Quantum Ogre re-arrangement allowed. Where improvisation is of necessity, procedurally generated detail, often with random roll tables, is preferred.

(I have personal issues with blorb and its genesis the way other people feel about mention of GNS, so I hope that explanation is fair and neutral)

Cheers. Never heard that term before. I am sure there is a story behind why it was called "Blorb".

PS

Blorb is, apparently, a computer file format used for Infocom style text adventures.

 

[robertsconley]

I think PBTA has huge amounts in common with OSR. Role enforcement being a major one.

It would be a mistake to think the OSR creatively is about anything in particular other what could be done with classic D&D mechanics or themes. Role enforcement is certainly a common thing across system folks designed or cloned for the OSR but it not universal.

For example in OD&D, one of the major options within the OSR, characters have generally the same capabilities outside of combat and spellcasting.

This unlike later editions especially after the AD&D 2e Skills and Powers, 3.X, 4e, and 5e where each class has a shopping list of mechanical benefits.

This is very different then a system like PbtA which deliberately bakes strong roles into its system.

 

[Fenris-77]

I might say that other older editions of D&D do bake strong roles into the game but only in terms of dungeon crawls and perhaps wilderness exploration.

 

[robertsconley]

Sure but as someone that really enjoys older games I personally separate the idea of old school games from OSR. I would much rather grab an older game and play it as close to rules as written (which isn’t always how we played back in the day) than to pick up an OSR game.

The use of OSR as a shorthand for Old School Renaissance/Revival/Ruckus always got shit (from the beginning) for appropriating old school for what is a movement centered on classic D&D. But as I said earlier the OSR/TSR alliteration was fun to use.

My reply is that the Old School Renaissance (all caps) is a part of a larger old school renaissance (all lower case). And good luck trying to change people use of the term.

More so unlike classic D&D many other old school games like Classic Traveller, Runequest, and so on never suffered a creative break in the way classic D&D did when AD&D 2e and later D&D 3.0 were debuted.

Even when Traveller New Era was the published edition there was work done for classic Traveller and enough mechanical continuity, especially world building, that support for older systems never disappeared.

As for Runequest, BRP and other d100 related games from Chaosium meant that it never mostly disappeared creatively either.

 

[robertsconley]

I might say that other older editions of D&D do bake strong roles into the game but only in terms of dungeon crawls and perhaps wilderness exploration.

I take role to mean that there are distinct character types that are deliberately design to fulfill some function in an adventuring party. Blocker, Healer, Controller, etc.

AD&D 1e and AD&D 1e + Unearthed Arcana had distinct character types but they were archetypes not roles. Fighters did what they did because Gygax decided that what a character focused on fighting could do. The same with Clerics, Magic-Users, Rangers, Paladins, Illusionists, Thieves, Assassins, etc.

Independently of how Gygax viewed character types, the larger hobby noticed (and wrote about) that adventuring party organized in a certain way had a better rate of survival. But it wasn't until early 90s and spread of CRPGs/MUDs/MUSHes/Rogue-likes that idea of roles crystallized into the form we see today.

As for AD&D 1e, the non weapon proficiencies introduced in the Survival guides started to blur the lines. Then AD&D 2e started out with NWP and with the start of the Complete series, kits became a thing further blurring the line.

It wasn't until the advent of 3.0, and MMORPGs that the idea of roles started to dominate the hobby.

 

[Fenris-77]

I take role to mean that there are distinct character types that are deliberately design to fulfill some function in an adventuring party. Blocker, Healer, Controller, etc.

AD&D 1e and AD&D 1e + Unearthed Arcana had distinct character types but they were archetypes not roles. Fighters did what they did because Gygax decided that what a character focused on fighting could do. The same with Clerics, Magic-Users, Rangers, Paladins, Illusionists, Thieves, Assassins, etc.

Independently of how Gygax viewed character types, the larger hobby noticed (and wrote about) that adventuring party organized in a certain way had a better rate of survival. But it wasn't until early 90s and spread of CRPGs/MUDs/MUSHes/Rogue-likes that idea of roles crystallized into the form we see today.

The roles perhaps aren't as well defined as they look in newer editions, or quite the way you outline, but you still have melee, traps/sneaking, control, and healing all fairly evident in the class abilities. When you talk about needing a thief or a cleric I think that indexes defined roles. IDK, YMMV I guess.

 

[TristramEvans]

Fuck purists. Gatekeeping of any kind can kiss my ass. I find the people who want to exclude things are actually just trying to keep the kids off their lawn. I don't think that means everything gets a pass on the OSR thing (neither game above makes my cut) but in all honesty it would have more to do with what you did with it. I own a couple of solid OSR type games that have obvious 5E influences as well as the classic games.

I, OTOH, am pro-gatekeeping. And am sick of all those boys showing up on my lawn trying to get my milkshakes.

 

[sharps54]

if the OSR had been tightly defined to start with it wouldn’t be a problem. No one in their right mind should complain if a cat isn’t allowed to participate in a dog show. Gatekeeping gets thrown around way to freely sometimes.

To be clear I don’t think you can easily exclude things from the OSR because there isn’t an accepted definition but if there was pointing out that something doesn’t meet it isn’t gatekeeping.

 

[lategamer]

Independently of how Gygax viewed character types, the larger hobby noticed (and wrote about) that adventuring party organized in a certain way had a better rate of survival.

Oh that raises a question

Was the survivability based on the roles themselves (where abilities were actively and deliberately spread between different characters) or in early design where the impetus was to give everyone their 'role'.

So, dungeons were likely to have things to fight (hey fighter, hey magic user), undead to turn and people to heal (hey priest), locks to pick and traps to diarm (hey thief).

I guess is this the puddle thought experiment. Are we a perfect fit for the dungeon because the dungeon was designed for our combination of roles?

Did parties with mixed roles survive better because they survive better as a unit or did they complete missions that required the particular set of skills needed. Those who couldn't fight, died. Those who couldn't turn undead, died. Those who couldn't pick a lock, died. Reminds me of the 'returning bomber meme'.

 

[robertsconley]

Oh that raises a question

Was the survivability based on the roles themselves (where abilities were actively and deliberately spread between different characters) or in early design where the impetus was to give everyone their 'role'.

So, dungeons were likely to have things to fight (hey fighter, hey magic user), undead to turn and people to heal (hey priest), locks to pick and traps to diarm (hey thief).

Most of this came out of the early MUDs, and MUSHes and gained it final development in the first MMORPGs particularly Everquest. Multiplayer CRPGs were heavily combat oriented. The first one were various translations of D&D 'as is'. Then as the importance of roles emerged the character types were tweaked until we get into the MMORPG era where it crystalized into what it is today.

I guess is this the puddle thought experiment. Are we a perfect fit for the dungeon because the dungeon was designed for our combination of roles?

From all accounts Gygax and Arneson designed things to challenge players personally. Combat and spellcasting abilities were for the most part designed naturalistically. Druids did what they did because that what Druids do as mystical nature spellcasters. Clerics were champion of their gods vanquishing the undead and healing the sick and injured. Magic Users cast spells that went boom as well as various useful mystical effects like levitate.

The Dungeon was created Arneson as something interesting to do for his Blackmoor players. And primarily designed to challenge the player's wits as they explored for treasure. Monster and combat were part of the dangers but one of many challenge players faced.

Gygax was taught this and honed his skill running his own Greyhawk dungeon. Which by all accounts was primarily designed to challenge the player's wits.

The Thief came after the introduction of D&D. Prior to the thief's introduction player skill was instrumental in overcoming locks and traps. Even afterward Thieves were an odd duck until the release of 3.0 Rogue and the classes' ability to sneak attack became paramount.

Did parties with mixed roles survive better because they survive better as a unit or did they complete missions that required the particular set of skills needed. Those who couldn't fight, died. Those who couldn't turn undead, died. Those who couldn't pick a lock, died. Reminds me of the 'returning bomber meme'.

View attachment 79242

Well the problem in this case is that with pen & paper RPG "dungeon adventures" are nuanced. Bomber problem you referenced was eventually discovered because the same type of machine, the bomber, was continually sent into the same type of situation, a target guarded by fighter cover and anti-air guns.

This is why combat roles didn't become a thing until advent of multi-player CRPGs. The scenarios of CRPGs are far more simplistic than most pen & paper RPGs. Not because the designer didn't try but rather due to the limitation of the software algorithms and the hardware they had to run. (I been developing software for 35 years).

As MP CRPGs grew in popularity we a situation not unlike WW2 bomber where hundreds if not thousands of players threw themselves into broadly similar situation, a maze with rooms filled with monsters, traps, tricks, and treasure. Over and over again. As a result they noticed certain tactics worked and other didn't.

The designer may have started out with emulating D&D and other fantasy RPG. But they saw what was happening and the importance of roles got enhanced for each subsequent generation of CRPGs.

Eventually it got translated into the world of pen & paper in the 2000s.

 

[Cessna]

Then make a character that will want to go into the dungeon. We've been playing Masks of Nyarlathotep recently, and the Keeper told us that at one point there is GM advice there that says pretty much the same thing.

My point is that this is something that is billed as "no railroading" and "a sandbox," but at the same time, options are extremely limited.

 

[lategamer]

Most of this came out of the early MUDs, and MUSHes and gained it final development in the first MMORPGs particularly Everquest. Multiplayer CRPGs were heavily combat oriented. The first one were various translations of D&D 'as is'. Then as the importance of roles emerged the character types were tweaked until we get into the MMORPG era where it crystalized into what it is today.

Oh, no no no. I'm talking way before CRPGs. I remember one of the first times I played D&D B/X being incredulous that my fighter couldn't even TRY any of the Thief skills.

This is why combat roles didn't become a thing until advent of multi-player CRPGs...
...
Eventually it got translated into the world of pen & paper in the 2000s.

I can't be understanding you correctly (and if so, mea culpa) but combat vs support roles were very much baked into early D&D (much more than contemporary games like Palladium, T&T or Dragon Warriors) and long before CRPGs. I mean even Gauntlet (1985) had roles in the most basic sense and was a bit of a forerunner in that and entirely inspired by D&D. By that time I was already playing MERP for years (and had abandoned D&D as a bad idea).

 

[Sharrow]

It wasn't until the advent of 3.0, and MMORPGs that the idea of roles started to dominate the hobby.

3e was when it was decided that everyone should have an equal important and useful role in combat. Prior to that Thieves being fairly awful at fighting was fine - that wasn't their job. Fighters being both the best 'tanks' and best 'DPS' (until the quadratic wizards and clerics made the fighter irrelevant) was fine, because combat was the fighter's job.

3e said 'everyone fights', and so made everyone good at combat. However, the authors didn't take the next step and ask themselves "If everyone is equally useful in combat, should they not also be equally useful outside of combat?". So fighters and fighter-adjacent classes got to not be better than anyone else at their speciality (fighting), and be worse at everything else (or at best, okay at about half of being the 'physical, athletic skills guy').

As far as I can tell, it's still this way in D&D.

 

[Bunch]

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.

If your plopped down in front of a dungeon and say "Nah let's go get a flying turtle and go into space" you are probably one of my children. Jesus I couldn't get them to walk a straight line in an RPG if I put them in a train.

 

[xanther]

Oh, no no no. I'm talking way before CRPGs. I remember one of the first times I played D&D B/X being incredulous that my fighter couldn't even TRY any of the Thief skills.

Amen...it got ridiculous at times IIRC. Same with a magic user couldn't use a sword, like literally and not some large penalty to use and you can't cast spells, but some thing where they could not even pick it up, swing your arm with it, sometimes not even carry it...

These rules were also in OD&D + supplements so the idea (or rules for ) of hard-coded roles there from day 1.

 

[Mosker]

If your plopped down in front of a dungeon and say "Nah let's go get a flying turtle and go into space" you are probably one of my children. Jesus I couldn't get them to walk a straight line in an RPG if I put them in a train.

[Insert nature/nature comment and possible Parenting Achievement Unlocked trophy depending on you response , their ages etc.]

 

[ffilz]

I started a debate before about the definition of sandbox and I think I'm happy with my outcome from that. A sandbox is something you can imagine anything you want within - but all sandboxes have edges. As a matter of consideration and good play, figure out where the edges are (the story the GM wants to tell, the limits of the ruleset, the theme) and inside those limits, do what you want.

This means leaving the sentient telekinetic broccoli-fish character on the back burner for a 1920s CoC game. It means not shouting Yelp and running to the airport at the first glimpse of the mythos. And it means not badgering the GM for a out of genre weapon (what do you ean I can't have claymores).

Opening the "what is a sandbox" can of worms again...

We have had previous discussion here where we identified that a sandbox does NOT have edges. We coined the term "qualified sandbox" for one that did have edges. Now sure, within the confines of the time available for a hobby (to quote robertsconley ), a sandbox may appear to have edges. Also there may be things that seem to be edges, but really they are just the GM holding to a consistent world view (no, there are no astronauts in this medieval setting).

"The story the GM wants to tell" is definitely not sandbox.

The only limit on a sandbox should be what is reasonable for your character to do in the setting.

 

[ffilz]

I think PBTA has huge amounts in common with OSR. Role enforcement being a major one.

I would not say that D&D has role enforcement. My understanding of PBtA as a generalization is that each player must pick a different playbook. NOTHING in the D&D rules prevents multiple (or all the) players from playing the same character class. Yes, each character class has a silo of abilities which suggest a role, but the fighter with a sack of healing potions might be a better healer than the cleric.

 

[ffilz]

The use of OSR as a shorthand for Old School Renaissance/Revival/Ruckus always got shit (from the beginning) for appropriating old school for what is a movement centered on classic D&D. But as I said earlier the OSR/TSR alliteration was fun to use.

My reply is that the Old School Renaissance (all caps) is a part of a larger old school renaissance (all lower case). And good luck trying to change people use of the term.

I mostly ignore the marketing term... I do acknowledge that there is a set of products that derive from the early D&D (mostly pre-2.0, definitely pre-3.0, but allowing 5.0 back in sort of), but my interest is more the general use of the term to either directly play the old games (as I am doing) or look back to them for direct inspiration

More so unlike classic D&D many other old school games like Classic Traveller, Runequest, and so on never suffered a creative break in the way classic D&D did when AD&D 2e and later D&D 3.0 were debuted.

Even when Traveller New Era was the published edition there was work done for classic Traveller and enough mechanical continuity, especially world building, that support for older systems never disappeared.

As for Runequest, BRP and other d100 related games from Chaosium meant that it never mostly disappeared creatively either.

Well, RuneQuest DID have a break circa 2000 after RQ3 went out of print and Hero Wars/Quest became the game of choice, but that at least was acknowledged as a new game, NOT a new version of RQ. RQ then came back (sort of) with Mongoose RQ (but that WAS more of a break in a more different direction).

 

[Fenris-77]

I would not say that D&D has role enforcement. My understanding of PBtA as a generalization is that each player must pick a different playbook. NOTHING in the D&D rules prevents multiple (or all the) players from playing the same character class. Yes, each character class has a silo of abilities which suggest a role, but the fighter with a sack of healing potions might be a better healer than the cleric.

You can't select a fighter with a sack of healing potions though, can you?

Role 'enforcement' suggests must but I think that's misleading. This isn't even true of PbtA where yes the players all have to take different playbooks but there are usually far more playbooks than players and the choice there does not in way ensure a specific mix of skills/abilities X. 'Must' certainly isn't true of D&D classes. At best it gets to 'should' based on experience. However, if the base game has an imagined which ur adventure that has, for example, fiendish traps (as would be true of D&D I think), then there is certainly some emphasis on including a thief. Can you take all fighters? Sure you can, but it's probably going to be suboptimal in most editions. No healing, no stealth and no environment control. The simple possibility of selecting all one class isn't the same thing (at all) as suggesting that the game pushes a party toward a different outcome, which D&D certainly does.

Most game are designed with the possibility of the players taking all one class but very few of them are actually designed to run well played that way.

 

[Bunch]

[Insert nature/nature comment and possible Parenting Achievement Unlocked trophy depending on you response , their ages etc.]

Currenty one(8yr old) is a Shade/Tiefling Druid and the other(10) is a homebrew half Scorpion man his 11 yr old brother made up. They have acquired a custom Turtle spelljammer ship modified to include a scorpion tale and pincers. In the hold is an Apparatus of Kwalsh the tend to use as ground transport. The remainder of the crew is mostly mindless clockwork people created by the previous archmage owner(disappeared). One intelligent clockwork person acts as First Mate ordering the crew about and generally carrying out the captains orders. A little spirit lives also on the ship helping/harming as whim suits him. Recently a thief has asked for refuge and a way off the planet he was on to avoid punishment for various crimes. Last session found them engaged in battle with a pirate spelljammer crewed by hadozee.

I pulled out CM4 The Earthshaker module to give them a giant robot to deal with and maybe make my life slightly easier to which my 10 year old said "I don't like dealing with modules. I just wanna do whatever I want." Literally gave an 8 and 10 year old pair of boys the opportunity to have a giant robot but because it might involve staying on a path for more than 30 seconds they passed on it and left the planet.

 

[ffilz]

You can't select a fighter with a sack of healing potions though, can you?

Role 'enforcement' suggests must but I think that's misleading. This isn't even true of PbtA where yes the players all have to take different playbooks but there are usually far more playbooks than players and the choice there does not in way ensure a specific mix of skills/abilities X. 'Must' certainly isn't true of D&D classes. At best it gets to 'should' based on experience. However, if the base game has an imagined which ur adventure that has, for example, fiendish traps (as would be true of D&D I think), then there is certainly some emphasis on including a thief. Can you take all fighters? Sure you can, but it's probably going to be suboptimal in most editions. No healing, no stealth and no environment control. The simple possibility of selecting all one class isn't the same thing (at all) as suggesting that the game pushes a party toward a different outcome, which D&D certainly does.

Most game are designed with the possibility of the players taking all one class but very few of them are actually designed to run well played that way.

It's worth noting however, that often in class-less systems, players still design characters to fit certain roles, it just may be easier to fill multiple roles. Though it's also worth pointing out that OD&D does have fighter/magic user/thief... or fighter/magic user or fighter/thief. Multi-class clerics are less part of the system. AD&D adds some flexibility for multi-classing, and cleric multi-class is possible at least for NPCs.

In the end, I don't think you can call what happens in OD&D or AD&D enforcement of role. There ARE newer games I think that enforce it even more than PBtA's not allowing duplicate playbooks.

 

[T. Foster]

I mostly ignore the marketing term... I do acknowledge that there is a set of products that derive from the early D&D (mostly pre-2.0, definitely pre-3.0, but allowing 5.0 back in sort of), but my interest is more the general use of the term to either directly play the old games (as I am doing) or look back to them for direct inspiration

Well, RuneQuest DID have a break circa 2000 after RQ3 went out of print and Hero Wars/Quest became the game of choice, but that at least was acknowledged as a new game, NOT a new version of RQ. RQ then came back (sort of) with Mongoose RQ (but that WAS more of a break in a more different direction).

In the pre-OSRIC era (c. 2005ish) when we would talk about the/an “old-school renaissance” we were referring to a playstyle - anti-railroad, player-challenge focused, and also an element of random or at least emergent character creation (as opposed to point-buy or “deck building”) - and RQ, Traveller, T&T, Boot Hill, Flashing Blades, and other non-D&D games were absolutely included. If anything they were considered more representative pillars of that approach since they had by and large maintained faith with that playstyle while D&D had drifted increasingly further away from it from the mid-80s on. It was much more about how you played that what you played.

robertsconley is correct that by 2009ish “OSR” had become functionally synonymous with pre-d20 D&D and clone-games derived from it which overshadowed/replaced the earlier focus on playstyle and it’s 15 years too late to put that genie back in the bottle, but it was a drift (arguably a misappropriation) from the original meaning and intent, and when “old school” folks (mostly on forums) started disassociating themselves from and disavowing from the “OSR Movement” as it grew and metastasized on blogs and, a bit later, Google+.

 

[Fenris-77]

It's worth noting however, that often in class-less systems, players still design characters to fit certain roles, it just may be easier to fill multiple roles. Though it's also worth pointing out that OD&D does have fighter/magic user/thief... or fighter/magic user or fighter/thief. Multi-class clerics are less part of the system. AD&D adds some flexibility for multi-classing, and cleric multi-class is possible at least for NPCs.

In the end, I don't think you can call what happens in OD&D or AD&D enforcement of role. There ARE newer games I think that enforce it even more than PBtA's not allowing duplicate playbooks.

My point wasn't about the word 'enforcement', which I think has some baggage. It was that D&D, as a game, does indeed strongly mitigate for certain broad party composition choices. If you don't want to call that 'enforcement' fine, but it's there regardless. Call it informed role suggestion if that makes you feel better.

Obviously this isn't true of 5E.

 

[sharps54]

In the pre-OSRIC era (c. 2005ish) when we would talk about the/an “old-school renaissance” we were referring to a playstyle - anti-railroad, player-challenge focused, and also an element of random or at least emergent character creation (as opposed to point-buy or “deck building”) - and RQ, Traveller, T&T, Boot Hill, Flashing Blades, and other non-D&D games were absolutely included. If anything they were considered more representative pillars of that approach since they had by and large maintained faith with that playstyle while D&D had drifted increasingly further away from it from the mid-80s on. It was much more about how you played that what you played.

robertsconley is correct that by 2009ish “OSR” had become functionally synonymous with pre-d20 D&D and clone-games derived from it which overshadowed/replaced the earlier focus on playstyle and it’s 15 years too late to put that genie back in the bottle, but it was a drift (arguably a misappropriation) from the original meaning and intent, and when “old school” folks (mostly on forums) started disassociating themselves from and disavowing from the “OSR Movement” as it grew and metastasized on blogs and, a bit later, Google+.

I didn’t come across the term OSR until G+ but there definitely wasn’t a unified way to play in the 70’s and 80’s. Each group I played with, due to moves and whatnot, had their own style. I don’t doubt a group got together to push an “idealized” playstyle prior to G+ but it was only that, an idealized way some groups played those games.

 

[sharps54]

It’s like the current CAG movement, that’s a way to play but definitely not the unified way people played.

 

[robertsconley]

, but the fighter with a sack of healing potions might be a better healer than the cleric.

Exactly.