OSR: what is it even

[Voros]

A good summary. But you conflate the OSR with the associated rule systems. The OSR was a reaction against WOTC's D&D (streamlined? ROTFL). For example, Grognardia was a blog about D&D - not a blog about retroclones. I never personally even played a clone until OSE.

Except that from a historical perspective clearly G1-3 did introduce naturalism into D&D (prior to this adventures had a tendancy to contain killer rabbits,, meat ball monsters covered in gravy, and giant pigeons), I sold the first Dragonlance module in disgust when I got it because it was such a railroad (and never bought another TSR module), and indeed the period up until that point has a fantastically high hit rate of classic products, whereas immediately afterwards (when their module output doubled) you get such classics as The Forest Oracle. After that it was MERP/Rolemaster for me and I didn't revisit D&D for 25 years. So there's actually a lot of truth in those statements...

Except that OD&D (with the supplements and Strategic Review of course) is extremely close to AD&D. I'm sure that a majority of OD&D players used Monster Manual at the time, and all the spells and magic items can be viewed as optional extras for OD&D (that's how I use them and I'm far from alone). I'm sure many just ignore all the OTT rules (just like the hit locations in Blackmoor) such as the initiative system or weaopn speed or spell components.
Of course any movement attracts cranks, and while the "rulings, not rules" doctrine is a brain child of some strands of the OSR, it does not describe any version of D&D (even the original 3BB).

Somebody somewhere in this thread said something (which I can't now find) which reminded me that just as the OSR was given life by 3E (both as a reaction against it, and also helping it with the OGL) and given the boost it needed with the nose-dive popularity of 4E, and Pathfinder was caused by 4E, it was the success of the OSR which led to the design of D&D 5E (Pathfinder meant it was needed, the OSR showed the direction to take) and hence the amazing uptake in enthusiasm of D&D I see today. Without Pathfinder and the OSR it would likely have withered on the vine. Amusingly I've seen people who've only ever played 5E say they don't understand the need for the OSR. It's like all the people who love Tolkien-inspired fantasy or Led Zeppelin-inspired music who then say they don't see the point of the original.

JMal claimed, with no cursory let alone close reading, that DL 'ruined D&D' and similarly hyperbolic, perhaps even hysterical claims in a polemic that many took as the Gospel truth because it 'felt right.'

Yet he recently posted an appreciative review of David Cook's Time of the Dragons.

Retrospective: Time of the Dragon

When I first started writing these Retrospective posts, I set myself some broad historical parameters, in order to pare down the absolutely...

grognardia.blogspot.com

So as I suspected and argued on this very forum with an infamous OSR narcissist, JMal was clearly speaking polemically but many of his fans took him literally.

Post in thread 'OSR Guide For The Perplexed Questionnaire' https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/osr-guide-for-the-perplexed-questionnaire.2026/post-61825

Much more useful than JMal's sweeping declarations are the numerous, excellent blog posts on DL by the designer of Into the Unknown, which starts here:

Dragonlance was a Unique Sandbox

My OSR Blog about fantasy world building and rules analysis for D&D. Also home of the B/X inspired 5e-clone "Into the Unknown."

mythlands-erce.blogspot.com

Or Justin Alexander's extensive close reading of the original DL modules here:



I find far too much loose talk on OSR and other rpg blogs with little to no sourcing.

Outright false claims that a simple reading of the text would refute are popularized and spread across the net. One recent example is the widely repeatsd and clearly false claim that the 5e Spelljammer books didn't come with rules for ship-to-ship combat.

At the very least take the time to read if not play something before reviewing it.

JMal's post closed minds and drew lines whereas Anders and Justin's posting takes a more nuanced and historical approach.

Instead of dismissing something wholesale, as the OSR complains constantly happened to older editions of D&D, they revisit with a cooler head and ask what there is of value in DL.

An approach that JMal's most recent post suggests he may be coming around to.

 

[T. Foster]

JMal claimed, with no cursory let alone close reading, that DL 'ruined D&D' and similarly hyperbolic, perhaps even hysterical claims in a polemic that many took as the Gospel truth because it 'felt right.'

Yet he recently posted an appreciative review of David Cook's Time of the Dragons.

Retrospective: Time of the Dragon

When I first started writing these Retrospective posts, I set myself some broad historical parameters, in order to pare down the absolutely...

grognardia.blogspot.com

So as I suspect and argued on this very forum with an infamous OSR narcissist, JMal was clearly speaking polemically but many of his fans took him literally.

Post in thread 'OSR Guide For The Perplexed Questionnaire' https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/osr-guide-for-the-perplexed-questionnaire.2026/post-61825

Much more useful than JMal's sweeping declarations are the numerous, excellent blog posts on DL by the designer of Into the Unknown, which starts here:

Dragonlance was a Unique Sandbox

My OSR Blog about fantasy world building and rules analysis for D&D. Also home of the B/X inspired 5e-clone "Into the Unknown."

mythlands-erce.blogspot.com

Or Justin Alexander's extensive close reading of the original DL modules here:


I find too much loose talk on rpg blogs with no sourcing. At the very least take the time to read if not play something before reviewing it.

Part of it also is that JM was by and large uncritically repeating "received wisdom" from other, earlier polemicists (including, alas, me). Especially back in the Edition War era (and it’s a shame that the Dragonsfoot Edition War board wasn’t preserved for posterity because I think seeing those old posts from both sides would help add context to a lot of the odd-seeming vitriol among the old-school D&D fans of 20 years ago) I fully admit that I would regularly spout off maxims and slogans and such based on nothing more than emotion and ~15 year old memories in order both to rally “my side” and draw distinctions (accurately or otherwise) against the Other Guys (which included not just 3E but everything post-Gygax).

I was young then (mid-20s) and all of this online arguing stuff was still pretty new to me (though I did get into a few scraps on usenet and mailing lists back in the 90s, in my college days) and acting like a Jacobin was fun and gave an adrenaline rush.

But then I grew up…

 

[Voros]

Part of it also is that JM was by and large uncritically repeating "received wisdom" from other, earlier polemicists (including, alas, me). Especially back in the Edition War era (and it’s a shame that the Dragonsfoot Edition War board wasn’t preserved for posterity because I think seeing those old posts from both sides would help add context to a lot of the odd-seeming vitriol among the old-school D&D fans of 20 years ago) I fully admit that I would regularly spout off maxims and slogans and such based on nothing more than emotion and ~15 year old memories in order both to rally “my side” and draw distinctions (accurately or otherwise) against the Other Guys (which included not just 3E but everything post-Gygax).

I was young then (mid-20s) and all of this online arguing stuff was still pretty new to me (though I did get into a few scraps on usenet and mailing lists back in the 90s, in my college days) and acting like a Jacobin was fun and gave an adrenaline rush.

But then I grew up…

Yeah, I sensed that and said as much in our original debate on the pros and cons of JMal, if I can be forgiven for quoting myself:

"Now I think JMal was often being polemical and extemporaneous in what he viewed as an uphill argument with 'the Man' of 2e and WotC D&D at the time and like many intelligent polemicists would approach things in a more nuanced way in rational discussion."

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Imo, two reasons, one is he is a better essayist than most other OSR bloggers. Concise and clear, at least on the surface. I found the more closely you looked at his statements the more you can see how much he spoke in sweeping, unexamined and often inaccurate generalizations.

Which leads me to the second point: confirmation bias. He told people things they wanted to hear (his strange affixing of 'Gygaxian' to things that had little to nothing to do with Gygax; DL 'ruined D&D;' that there was a supposed 'Golden Age' of D&D whose peak was always some rapidly vanishing point in the misty past, etc.).

The advantage you have there is that Gygax was an erudite and interesting commentator, but frequently an inconsistent and contradictory one. So if you want to declare your prefered style of gaming to be the inheritor of True Gygaxian Gaming tm you can likely find something there to back it up.

That used to be worse. I do think one thing the OSR does get definite credit for is the increase in interest and credit for Dave Arneson.

 

[Armchair Gamer]

The fact they can’t disavow AD&D 1E really has to bug some in the OSR because it really rubs against the tenants a lot of the people in the movement proclaim.

And now you've got the BrOSR, which is taking AD&D 1E as sacred text.

 

[T. Foster]

And now you've got the BrOSR, which is taking AD&D 1E as sacred text.

I’m pretty sure AT LEAST half of that is just trolling and winding people up and that there’s a heavy kayfabe or “double immersive” factor involved.

 

[sharps54]

I am a big fan of AD&D but there is no one true way to play it. Ultimately I enjoy trying to play as close to the spirit of the written rules as possible but if you don’t that doesn’t mean you are wrong. Anyone that shits on the way a group they aren’t a member of plays is just an asshole.

And now you've got the BrOSR, which is taking AD&D 1E as sacred text.

 

[Armchair Gamer]

I’m pretty sure AT LEAST half of that is just trolling and winding people up and that there’s a heavy kayfabe or “double immersive” factor involved.

I hope you're right ... but I don't know that 'kayfabe' works well on the Internet, especially in as confined and flat a space as Twitter.

 

[Urdlen's best boy]

Cracking jokes is cheap so I'll give my real opinion now

I find it irritating when people claim some sort of orthodoxy and if I go check up the sources it's nowhere to be found, doubly if once I show up the sources they keep insisting based on feels.

But zooming out of whatever argument I'm rather happy that this serves as vehicle to dig up in the history of the hobby. "Un mal pour un bien" ("an ill for a good") we say in french. Not that people being wrong on the internet some times is much of an ill, but you get the point. Especially as a relatively younger (compared to the OSR average) and non-US person, I find these conversations valuable.

And then I tend to approve almost any artistic movement that stands for any premise or produces any amount of self reflection (theory), both because creating is good and because it gives me more to ponder and possibly improve my game. There's also a certain DIY ethos that I salute, and that generates a form of innovation - I don't particularily like rules lite for play myself, but taking things as they are, I can still appreciate the effort and refinement that goes into many OSR design, esp. layout and presentation, which I've been impressed by on a few occasions. And even if by definition the rules are a fair bit reiterative, there still are interesting things here and there.

I'd like to see more large indy project, and esp settings, and rules design other that whatever we already have. However, that's not really on the OSR, and not even that unique to RPGs - the larger book industry isn't much better and to the extent it is, I suspect it's more an affair of operating within a smaller market (+ possibly that it's a media for collective use).

Semi related, I'd like to know how much room is there to grow and innovate within the RPG sphere? I constantly here the market is saturated, but I wonder lately, whether it is or not possible to lead by offer in this sphere - rather than follow demand.

 

[Baulderstone]

I am a big fan of AD&D but there is no one true way to play it. Ultimately I enjoy trying to play as close to the spirit of the written rules as possible but if you don’t that doesn’t mean you are wrong. Anyone that shits on the way a group they aren’t a member of plays is just an asshole.

One of the most basic elements of RPGs is that it's a form of entertainment you make with your friends, and you can use whatever rules and setting you like. Anyone that makes a claim to orthodoxy completely fails to understand what RPGs are.

 

[Vargold]

I honestly prefer the best stuff produced by the OSR to the best stuff produced by TSR, at least in the pre-2E period. (Although that good OSR stuff also makes the bad OSR stuff, the utterly uninspired "giant rats and copper pieces" adventures feel worse than the worst TSR stuff.)

 

[robertsconley]

What was Gygax thinking ignoring that principle when he wrote it

Commercial opportunity is what made the AD&D project a thing for Gygax to write and for TSR to publish. However the form of it was in my opinion shaped by the below.

Throughout the 70s, Gygax and the rest of TSR were hit with the 70s equivalent of spam. Questions about how to play OD&D as well as people being enthusiastic about their creations and wanting to make sure TSR heard all about it as the next great addition to D&D.

Right or Wrong one natural response would be to write a tighter set of rules.

You can see some of this attitude in the forward of Gods, Demi-gods, and Heroes.

 

[robertsconley]

For example, Grognardia was a blog about D&D - not a blog about retroclones. I never personally even played a clone until OSE.

Review of the Majestic Wilderlands (2009)

The Clone Wars (2008)

Do it Yourself Days (2008)

Swords & Wizardry (2008)

Mutant Future (2008)

Monster of Myth (2008)

All post tagged Retro-clones

 

[Voros]

I’m pretty sure AT LEAST half of that is just trolling and winding people up and that there’s a heavy kayfabe or “double immersive” factor involved.

Possibily but one of the key figures in that pseudo-movement holds a lot of frankly nutty views that seem too absurd for someone to actually advocate. I recall one supposed review of Burroughs' Princess of Mars that spent the majority of its length ranting about how Princess Leia wasn't nude enough in the Star Wars series. Sounds like a joke but sadly it wasn't.

Some effective hyping online though because as far as I can tell the 'movememt' amounts to less than half a dozen loudmouths on the net.

 

[AsenRG]

Possibily but one of the key figures in that pseudo-movement holds a lot of frankly nutty views that seem too absurd for someone to actually advocate.

Dude, there's no such views, alas...

 

[sharps54]

Commercial opportunity is what made the AD&D project a thing for Gygax to write and for TSR to publish. However the form of it was in my opinion shaped by the below.

Throughout the 70s, Gygax and the rest of TSR were hit with the 70s equivalent of spam. Questions about how to play OD&D as well as people being enthusiastic about their creations and wanting to make sure TSR heard all about it as the next great addition to D&D.

Right or Wrong one natural response would be to write a tighter set of rules.

You can see some of this attitude in the forward of Gods, Demi-gods, and Heroes.

View attachment 79905

I was trying to make a joke, Gygax couldn’t violate a principle of the OSR because it didn’t exist and because he was one of the creators making up the hobby as he went.

 

[Endless Flight]

I recall one supposed review of Burroughs' Princess of Mars that spent the majority of its length ranting about how Princess Leia wasn't nude enough in the Star Wars series.

They were never the same after seeing Return of the Jedi.

 

[robertsconley]

I was trying to make a joke, Gygax couldn’t violate a principle of the OSR because it didn’t exist and because he was one of the creators making up the hobby as he went.

My point is that there was a dramatic shift in tone from what Gygax's writes in OD&D versus what he writes in AD&D 1e. That there are understandable reasons for that.

 

[sharps54]

My point is that there was a dramatic shift in tone from what Gygax's writes in OD&D versus what he writes in AD&D 1e. That there are understandable reasons for that.

Definitely. And I think the hobby is better for it because it gives us a different way to game than OD&D. Some people really like the greater structure of AD&D even if we know Gygax did not play by the rules of it.

 

[robertsconley]

Definitely. And I think the hobby is better for it because it gives us a different way to game than OD&D. Some people really like the greater structure of AD&D even if we know Gygax did not play by the rules of it.

the AD&D system as a set of options is fine, a popular classic both then and now. But the sentiment expressed by the below was a step backward for the hobby and has caused issues ever since.


Tabletop Roleplaying was developed in an atmosphere of "seat of your pants" refereeing by Arneson first with his Blackmoor campaign, and then later by Gygax in his Greyhawk campaign.

And in the Elusive Shift we can see this tradition continue as the first referees ran their campaigns as D&D and other RPGs spread.

RPGs campaigns do not work as well with a rigid adherence to RAW. They were never designed with that in mind. Only later after being deluged by phone calls and letters, combined with commercial opportunities created by the first D&D tournaments, do we see RAW being promoted. Both reasons I am highly critical of as a creative goal for an RPG.

The former is better handled by better advice. Which in most respects the DMG handles very well except for the mention of RAW as the way to go in the book and in Dragon Magazine.

The latter is fine, provided one keeps in mind that the rules and organization of tournaments are the exception, not the norm, and should be a supplement, not the focus of your core books. In the future, the same thing should apply to organized play.

The AD&D system used in the spirit of the first campaigns is a classic for the ages. The AD&D system RAW rigidly adhered to is not.

The last paragraph of OD&D Vol III

 

[sharps54]

the AD&D system as a set of options is fine, a popular classic both then and now. But the sentiment expressed by the below was a step backward for the hobby and has caused issues ever since.

View attachment 79912
Tabletop Roleplaying was developed in an atmosphere of "seat of your pants" refereeing by Arneson first with his Blackmoor campaign, and then later by Gygax in his Greyhawk campaign.

And in the Elusive Shift we can see this tradition continue as the first referees ran their campaigns as D&D and other RPGs spread.

RPGs campaigns do not work as well with a rigid adherence to RAW. They were never designed with that in mind. Only later after being deluged by phone calls and letters, combined with commercial opportunities created by the first D&D tournaments, do we see RAW being promoted. Both reasons I am highly critical of as a creative goal for an RPG.

The former is better handled by better advice. Which in most respects the DMG handles very well except for the mention of RAW as the way to go in the book and in Dragon Magazine.

The latter is fine, provided one keeps in mind that the rules and organization of tournaments are the exception, not the norm, and should be a supplement, not the focus of your core books. In the future, the same thing should apply to organized play.

The AD&D system used in the spirit of the first campaigns is a classic for the ages. The AD&D system RAW rigidly adhered to is not.

The last paragraph of OD&D Vol III
View attachment 79913

There are gamers that prefer the have that structure provided by AD&D, some (like the hosts of the CAG podcast you were recently on) will tell you it the best chassis ever published for running long campaigns. The nature of the open world environment and freedom of action that are inherent in a RPG means there will always be a need to be able to switch to running by the seat of your pants. Games change and what people try to achieve with them change. Your way and preferences may not be the same as someone else’s.

 

[robertsconley]

There are gamers that prefer the have that structure provided by AD&D, some (like the hosts of the CAG podcast you were recently on) will tell you it the best chassis ever published for running long campaigns. The nature of the open world environment and freedom of action that are inherent in a RPG means there will always be a need to be able to switch to running by the seat of your pants. Games change and what people try to achieve with them change. Your way and preferences may not be the same as someone else’s.

I am not talking about the level of detail in a system. Remember, I ran GURPS for a number of decades. If any system has structure and detail, it is GURPS.

What I am talking about is adherence to RAW, which we have seen leads to a less open world environments and less freedom of action, mainly by subscribing to the notion that if it is not covered by the rules, it is not part of the campaign.

As for the hosts of the CAG podcast, they are well aware of what they have to do to make AD&D work for their campaigns and don't hesitate to make the stuff or the rulings they need to make it happen.

As for what I did with GURPS, as opposed to OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry, I had to create additional material to cover all the aspects of my Majestic Wilderlands I wanted when I used Swords & Wizardry. In contrast, GURPS has so many details and options that it was more a matter of figuring out which elements to combine to make what I needed for the campaign. But the methodology I followed in both cases was the same.

While AD&D does not possess the level of detail that GURPS does, it has many elements in its toolkit that allow it to create a variety of fantasy settings and campaigns. The podcast I was on was about worldbuilding. And for the most part when it came to the nuts and bolts stuff we used AD&D and other classic editions.

This is opposed to an attitude that has grown in the hobby over the past two decades that the only things that can be in a setting are those things found in the rulebook. The only things a character can do have to be described in the rulebook.

Detailed system design is one thing, but the above is, in my opinion, is antithetical to how RPG campaigns were designed to run.

 

[Baulderstone]

The fact that Gygax felt that he needed to create a version of the system different than what he ran himself just underlines the fact that whatever quotes you can find from him to the contrary, he didn't believe there was only one way to run D&D.

 

[Self Saboteur]

My 2 pieces of copper. D&D/AD&D(and RPG's generally) rules are guidelines to adhere to, disregard, and/or change as seen fit. Stricter rules adherence is for war/skirmish games.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

The fact that Gygax felt that he needed to create a version of the system different than what he ran himself just underlines the fact that whatever quotes you can find from him to the contrary, he didn't believe there was only one way to run D&D.

This is probably a case where the distinction between Gary-the-gamer and Mr-Gygax-the-businessman is critical to understanding some of those quotes.

 

[sharps54]

I am not talking about the level of detail in a system. Remember, I ran GURPS for a number of decades. If any system has structure and detail, it is GURPS.

What I am talking about is adherence to RAW, which we have seen leads to a less open world environments and less freedom of action, mainly by subscribing to the notion that if it is not covered by the rules, it is not part of the campaign.

As for the hosts of the CAG podcast, they are well aware of what they have to do to make AD&D work for their campaigns and don't hesitate to make the stuff or the rulings they need to make it happen.

As for what I did with GURPS, as opposed to OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry, I had to create additional material to cover all the aspects of my Majestic Wilderlands I wanted when I used Swords & Wizardry. In contrast, GURPS has so many details and options that it was more a matter of figuring out which elements to combine to make what I needed for the campaign. But the methodology I followed in both cases was the same.

While AD&D does not possess the level of detail that GURPS does, it has many elements in its toolkit that allow it to create a variety of fantasy settings and campaigns. The podcast I was on was about worldbuilding. And for the most part when it came to the nuts and bolts stuff we used AD&D and other classic editions.

This is opposed to an attitude that has grown in the hobby over the past two decades that the only things that can be in a setting are those things found in the rulebook. The only things a character can do have to be described in the rulebook.

Detailed system design is one thing, but the above is, in my opinion, is antithetical to how RPG campaigns were designed to run.

I’m glad you acknowledge this is just your opinion. The AD&D DMG is clear that the DM can add elements to the game and you aren’t restricted to what is on the printed page nor do the core three books force you play in any specific setting.

 

[AsenRG]

I am not talking about the level of detail in a system. Remember, I ran GURPS for a number of decades. If any system has structure and detail, it is GURPS.

...ain't that true!

 

[AsenRG]

The fact that Gygax felt that he needed to create a version of the system different than what he ran himself just underlines the fact that whatever quotes you can find from him to the contrary, he didn't believe there was only one way to run D&D.

I have been explaining the shift to more codification with some of my favourite Gronan quotes, especially those involving the famous "booger-eating morons" monster (HD: 1/4, 1/2 attack/turn, no special abilities, numbers encountered: 1-10 000).

 

[Baulderstone]

I have been explaining the shift to more codification with some of my favourite Gronan quotes, especially those involving the famous "booger-eating morons" monster (HD: 1/4, 1/2 attack/turn, no special abilities, numbers encountered: 1-10 000).

Gronan's regular comment that the early days of D&D were just them making up some crap they thought would be fun really is a good counterpoint to the seriousness of the AD&D orthodoxy.

I've been both a playtester and editor on RPGs over the years. Games aren't divinely delivered into the mind of a designer by the archangel Gabriel. The designer jots down some ideas and tries them at the table. Some ideas work, some need to be adjusted and some get scrapped entirely. And game designers, by their nature, usually don't stop tweaking their home games even after they have been published.

The mindset of people who believe their is some platonic ideal of the D&D rules is the opposite mindset to anyone that is a good game designer.

 

[T. Foster]

D&D was designed by and for wargame hobbyists, which was a very niche audience of maybe a few thousand people in the US and a couple thousand more (at most) in the UK. These people were all heavily into homebrewing and customizing, basically each club sort of cobbled together its own set of rules which may never have been put down in writing and if they were distributed at all it was on mimeographed sheets that were handed out for free. To the extent there was any money in this hobby it was in selling figures and models, not rules.

Don Lowry at Guidon Games was the first one to try to make a business out of selling miniatures rules pamphlets like Tractics and Chainmail and Don’t Give Up the Ship as their own thing (rather than a promotional loss-leader for a line of models) and everyone thought he was nuts (and considering how the company struggled and ultimately failed they were probably right). That’s the environment in which D&D was written and initially marketed - that the existing hobbyists would see it and take inspiration from it to effectively create their own similar games the way Prof. Barker did. The thing that was felt to have possible mainstream appeal was Dave Megarry’s Dungeon boardgame, which was a sort of simplified and streamlined distillation of the dungeon-crawling aspect of Blackmoor, which is why even after TSR was founded and D&D published Megarry and Gygax were still attempting to sell that game to a mainstream publisher, and only after a year+ of frustration and failure eventually decided to publish it through TSR instead.

That’s all summarized from Jon Peterson’s Game Wizards book. The point is that D&D pretty quickly grew way beyond that initial audience by hooking sf and fantasy fans who didn’t have any real prior overlap with historical wargaming so they didn’t have the grounding or habits in creating their own rules - they needed and wanted things explained more clearly and in more detail than what D&D provided. Not because they were stupid or lazy, they just had different interests and priorities - they wanted to create characters and stories and worlds, not rules simulations. So D&D had to change to accommodate that new (and much, much larger) audience, because if they didn’t someone else was going to - T&T was iterating editions and getting more polished, Chaosium was developing RuneQuest, FGU has Chivalry & Sorcery, Judges Guild was having success selling D&D play aids and modules, etc.

Thus we get the two-pronged D&D revision: the Basic Set which gives more context and examples for how to get started, and Advanced D&D, which fills in all (not really, but that was at least the intent) the details and provides explanations and instructions for all the stuff that had been assumed or taken for granted in D&D. Between those two the game becomes comprehensible and playable by someone without a wargaming background. And it’s only after those products were released that D&D really took off in popularity: from 1974 to 1978 TSR had sold a bit over 40,000 D&D sets (which is already a pretty amazing accomplishment since most wargame rules at that time sold maybe a couple thousand copies); in 1979 alone they sold over 300,000 Basic Sets and AD&D hardbacks, in 1980 they sold over a million units, and in 1981 they sold almost 2 million [these numbers provided by Paul Stormberg (1974-78) and Ben Riggs (1979+)].

Yeah with hindsight it’s easy to lament the change in tone and direction and loss of the freewheeling DIY spirit of OD&D, and if you were one of those first 40K players (which I know some posters here were) I can see why you’d resent and even feel betrayed by it, but the reality is that D&D was never going to see the level of success it saw in 1979-81 on the back of the 1974 D&D set or anything like it.

 

[Baulderstone]

Yeah with hindsight it’s easy to lament the change in tone and direction and loss of the freewheeling DIY spirit of OD&D, and if you were one of those first 40K players (which I know some posters here were) I can see why you’d resent and even feel betrayed by it, but the reality is that D&D was never going to see the level of success it saw in 1979-81 on the back of the 1974 D&D set or anything like it.

There is a certainly a contradiction in wanting a freewheeling, DIY spirit, but wanting a game company to deliver it to you.

Your 40K analogy is a good one. I did play 40K back when the it was just the original rule book, with all it's advice on using your own models to play. I felt angry and betrayed by GW's increasing commercialism, but my anger was pointless. GW didn't come and stop us from using Veritech fighters and Lego in our 40K game. We had the core book, and it was up to us to take it where we wanted from that point.

 

[T. Foster]

There is a certainly a contradiction in wanting a freewheeling, DIY spirit, but wanting a game company to deliver it to you.

Your 40K analogy is a good one. I did play 40K back when the it was just the original rule book, with all it's advice on using your own models to play. I felt angry and betrayed by GW's increasing commercialism, but my anger was pointless. GW didn't come and stop us from using Veritech fighters and Lego in our 40K game. We had the core book, and it was up to us to take it where we wanted from that point.

I was actually referring to the 40,000 D&D sets TSR sold between 1974 and 1978, but your analogy works too!

 

[Endless Flight]

The $$$ are in the details.

 

[AsenRG]

Gronan's regular comment that the early days of D&D were just them making up some crap they thought would be fun really is a good counterpoint to the seriousness of the AD&D orthodoxy.

Of course, that's why I liked his posts so much - even when we would have advocated for totally different solutions (on almost all mechanical matters, as opposed to Refereeing)!

I've been both a playtester and editor on RPGs over the years. Games aren't divinely delivered into the mind of a designer by the archangel Gabriel. The designer jots down some ideas and tries them at the table. Some ideas work, some need to be adjusted and some get scrapped entirely. And game designers, by their nature, usually don't stop tweaking their home games even after they have been published.

I thought they're just doing it to drive guys who want Complete Collections nuts?!?

The mindset of people who believe their is some platonic ideal of the D&D rules is the opposite mindset to anyone that is a good game designer.

Agreed, even though I've been guilty of such thinking as well...

All I can say is, I've learned better!

There is a certainly a contradiction in wanting a freewheeling, DIY spirit, but wanting a game company to deliver it to you.

Well, the only problem is that a freewheeling, DYI game requires players and GMs who are able to shit unassisted, and those tend to be the minority...


Wait, I'm channeling Gronan, am I not?

 

[T. Foster]

Something that I think would’ve been helpful from Gary c. 1979-80 (before “gamer Gary” got entirely subsumed by “business Gary”) would’ve been a designer’s notes column in Dragon magazine about “how I play AD&D at my table.”

The AD&D rules consist of essentially three things: (1) expansion, editing, and rebalancing of OD&D content (to make upward progress slower and more measured, to limit spell casters and make fighters relatively stronger, to clarify how spells and magic items function, etc); (2) really detailed and crunchy procedures for DMs who don’t have the experience and confidence (or perhaps just the inclination) to wing it with judgment calls (stuff like the disease table and morale adjustments list and initiative and unarmed combat rules and performance rating system); and (3) essays and advice.

I’m pretty sure, both from the games I played in with him and from his after-the-fact commentary in online Q&As, that Gary used all of the category 1 stuff at his table (at least as far as he remembered it) but pretty much none of the category 2 stuff, which he didn’t need - he handled it all through ad hoc rulings and judgments that got to more-or-less the same endpoint as following the procedures would (the procedures were essentially Gary laying out in detail the thought processes that informed his rulings). Alas, the text of the rules doesn’t differentiate between the two categories (with one exception: after the full page of morale modifiers in the DMG he says, effectively, “use these until you’ve got a good feel for the system, but then you’ll find that you don’t need to actually calculate this stuff and can just make judgment calls to handle it based on what feels right” - the same could/should have been said about a LOT of the other AD&D rules) so even now, 45 years later, we still get people arguing about what is “core” and “BTB” in AD&D and how closely DMs should hew to the text and what amount of judgment calls and skipping of book-stuff is appropriate. This leads on the one hand to the obsessive rules-fanatics at Dragonsfoot (see ADDICT, the mind-numbing 30 page explication of the “BTB” AD&D initiative rules) and on the other to a whole bunch of people who throw out AD&D altogether and use BX instead, perhaps with some AD&D chrome layered on top (a la Advanced Labyrinth Lord, OSE Advanced Fantasy, or Greg Gillespie’s Dragonslayer).

I sympathize with the second group, but think their stance is unfortunate because it throws out the “good part” of AD&D (the category 1 content) along with the bad (the clunky and overcomplicated - and, let’s be honest, minimally-playtested at best - category 2 stuff). I know where that line is, mostly because I’ve been doing this for decades and played a couple times at The Man’s table, but realize both that the books themselves are no real help in drawing that distinction (especially by reading alone - it becomes clearer at the table) and that there’s no reason for people to take my word for it, especially when there are s lot of people with as good or better credentials than mine saying totally different stuff (like Greg Gillespie and the guy who compiled ADDICT).

So having a contemporary commentary from Gygax about how he actually implemented the AD&D rules at his table - what he considered core vs optional vs “training wheels” stuff that you can toss aside once you’ve got the concepts down - probably would’ve been really useful.

 

[Toadmaster]

The fact that Gygax felt that he needed to create a version of the system different than what he ran himself just underlines the fact that whatever quotes you can find from him to the contrary, he didn't believe there was only one way to run D&D.

Even as a 12 year old kid we laughed at their being only "one true way" as AD&D opined in places.

 

[JoeNuttall]

Review of the Majestic Wilderlands (2009)

The Clone Wars (2008)

Do it Yourself Days (2008)
Swords & Wizardry (2008)

Mutant Future (2008)

Monster of Myth (2008)

All post tagged Retro-clones

Did you think I meant it never covered reroclones?

Yes, it contained posts about retroclones. It contained posts about pulp fiction. It contained posts about Traveller. It contained posts about White Dwarf and Dragonlance.

But it was a blog about old school D&D, not a blog about retroclones.

 

[JoeNuttall]

JMal claimed, with no cursory let alone close reading, that DL 'ruined D&D' and similarly hyperbolic, perhaps even hysterical claims in a polemic that many took as the Gospel truth because it 'felt right.'

I can't say how much JMal read Dragonlance, but IMHO DL1 was a terrible module (though I believe there were some good bits). The success of it (perhaps spurred on by the likes of Quagmire and The Forest Oracle being far worse) did cement the idea that the module was there to tell a story that the module writer wished to tell - an idea that the Hickmans were both the earliest and proudest champions of. So it is certainly a fair target.

Yet he recently posted an appreciative review of David Cook's Time of the Dragons.

Retrospective: Time of the Dragon

When I first started writing these Retrospective posts, I set myself some broad historical parameters, in order to pare down the absolutely...

grognardia.blogspot.com

How dare he!

So as I suspected and argued on this very forum with an infamous OSR narcissist, JMal was clearly speaking polemically but many of his fans took him literally.

Post in thread 'OSR Guide For The Perplexed Questionnaire' https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/osr-guide-for-the-perplexed-questionnaire.2026/post-61825

He himself said himself the same thing back in 2008 - How Dragonlance Ruined Everything

Much more useful than JMal's sweeping declarations are the numerous, excellent blog posts on DL by the designer of Into the Unknown, which starts here:

Dragonlance was a Unique Sandbox

My OSR Blog about fantasy world building and rules analysis for D&D. Also home of the B/X inspired 5e-clone "Into the Unknown."

mythlands-erce.blogspot.com

That post is about a sandbox supplement for Dragonlance in 1992 by different authors... which doesn't really address what effect the original Dragonlance module series had in 1984...

Or Justin Alexander's extensive close reading of the original DL modules here:

God that's a tedious link.

I find far too much loose talk on OSR and other rpg blogs with little to no sourcing.

JMal's argument (as per the link above) was fairly coherrent.

Outright false claims that a simple reading of the text would refute are popularized and spread across the net. One recent example is the widely repeatsd and clearly false claim that the 5e Spelljammer books didn't come with rules for ship-to-ship combat.

That's the internet for you.

At the very least take the time to read if not play something before reviewing it.

I think we can all agree that it's astonishingly irritating that 99% of all reviews are written by people who have not played the thing they are reviewing.

JMal's post closed minds and drew lines whereas Anders and Justin's posting takes a more nuanced and historical approach.

I think the oppsite - JMal's posts on Grognardia opened people's minds to sandboxes and megadungeons.

Instead of dismissing something wholesale, as the OSR complains constantly happened to older editions of D&D, they revisit with a cooler head and ask what there is of value in DL.

Good on them.

 

[Vargold]

Even as a 12 year old kid we laughed at their being only "one true way" as AD&D opined in places.

Yes, my tweener group thought Gary was an ancient geezer crank based on his Dragon editorials.

 

[Baulderstone]

Yes, my tweener group thought Gary was an ancient geezer crank based on his Dragon editorials.

I know I felt that way as a tween. Gary's editorials in the '80s were an influence on me quickly moving away from D&D to other games.