What is OSR about?

[Bullgrit]

Perhaps because it's not "a yearning for the past in idealized form."

This taking the term "nostalia" as a slight is something that confuses me.

See, I play D&D at all largely out of nostalgia. My preferred play style comes from a strong "yearning for the past in idealized form." I want to play the style of campaign that I used to play [and/or wanted to play] because I enjoyed it [and/or desired it] back then.

I love reading my old D&D books, not because they are excellent books on their own, but because they tickle my nostalgia gland. There are actually many things I dislike about some of the classic D&D adventure modules, but I love reading them for the nostalgia.

The main reason I don't like* the latest edition of D&D is that it doesn't have any nostalgic link for me.

So, for me, nostalgia is not a bad word. It's, in fact, a good word.

* "Don't like" does not mean "dislike."

Bullgrit

 

[Desdichado]

Back in the day, it was a common (although I'm sure just as unfair then as it would be now) complaint or observation that fantasy as a genre was nothing but nostalgia, and idealization of the past.

It's hard to argue that that isn't a big portion of fantasy's attraction even today, although of course, you can't say that's the only attraction.

And before that, the same thing was said of the Medieval Romances of the 19th century.

Which was said of the chansons de geste and other works of the centuries prior to that.

The same complaint has been made about Homer, writing during the Greek Dark Ages and yearning for the Golden Mycenaean age.

It'll always be with us, I'm sure.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Well, I think there's the OSR, and then there's the retro-clone movement, and then there's the New Wave of Pre-3e Material. I think there's significant overlap between these three groups, but it's worth making a distinction.

I understand the retro-clone movement. It was born in 2006, as the brainchild of Chris "Solomoriah" Gonnerman and Matt "Mythmere" Finch (who as far as I can tell both independently had similar ideas at the same time), who were quite quickly joined by Daniel Proctor and yours truly. BFRPG was first, then OSRIC, then Labyrinth Lord and finally S&W.

The retro-clone movement arises from a fusion of the early-80's rules with the late-90's ideas around Open Gaming. Ryan Dancey is as much its spiritual father as, say, Frank Mentzer is, because retro-clones are basically about empowering someone else to publish something. And the main retro-clones are free, like the 3e SRD was.

That "free" element was vital, because when the retro-clones came out, the market was wary and cynical. The 2004-2005, d20, OGL-fuelled publishing blitz contained some worthy material and also a lot of overpriced rubbish. The attraction of the retro-clones was that you could see the game you were being offered, download it, read it, think about it and then decide whether to buy a print copy. Buyers loved that, and so the retro-clone movement got a further boost.

I understand the New Wave of Pre-3e Material. This is what happens when GMs who've been running the same system for 30 years finally get a chance to publish the best stuff from their notes:- publishers have a lot of material to choose from, and they can be a bit selective about what they market. The New Wave will ease in time, but at the moment there's still plenty of pent-up material to sell.

I don't fully understand the OSR. There's an extent to which it seems to be about nerd-rage, self-justification ("our game is better than your game and here's why") and evangelism (on the apparent theory that if you once try a Gygaxian game you'll be "cured" of enjoying later editions). I would obviously like to distance myself from that view, even though I might be accused of having fuelled it by publishing OSRIC... but I am evangelistic to this extent: whoever you are, I'd like to sit you down at my gaming table to play OSRIC with me.

Negative aspects aside, there's also an extent to which the OSR is a positive and healthy thing, celebrating the rediscovery of all the things Gary Gygax, J. Eric Holmes, Tom Moldvay, Dave Arneson, Len Lakofka et. al. got right. And I can understand that. Extracting a simple and coherent set of rules from the disorganised, rambling stream of consciousness in High Gygaxian prose that is the 1e DMG is no easy task, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that thirty years after that book was originally published, people are still discovering fresh nuggets of wisdom in what it says.

 

[Desdichado]

That's an interesting distinction, with those three labels. I mean, I'd have called them all facets of the OSR myself, but I don't disagree at all that they're three distinct populations, to an extent, who only superficially resemble each other.

 

[Reynard]

Extracting a simple and coherent set of rules from the disorganised, rambling stream of consciousness in High Gygaxian prose that is the 1e DMG is no easy task, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that thirty years after that book was originally published, people are still discovering fresh nuggets of wisdom in what it says.

In my next campaign, the scholarly language will be called High Gygaxian.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

In my next campaign, the scholarly language will be called High Gygaxian.

As epitomised by Zagyg Yragerne's seven-volume epic tome, "The antithesis of weal."

 

[Ourph]

This taking the term "nostalia" as a slight is something that confuses me.

Is it really that difficult to understand that years of people using it as a slight has given it that connotation? It's the equivalent of "video-gamey" for 3e and 4e. Video games in and of themselves aren't bad, but "video-gamey" is edition war shorthand for "your game sucks". Likewise "nostalgia" has become edition war shorthand for "you're a deluded old luddite who is too scared of change to recognize the obvious superiority of newer games".

 

[Mallus]

Negative aspects aside, there's also an extent to which the OSR is a positive and healthy thing, celebrating the rediscovery of all the things Gary Gygax, J. Eric Holmes, Tom Moldvay, Dave Arneson, Len Lakofka et. al. got right.

I'm not big into retro-gaming right now but I like OSR's focus on the gonzo DIY spirit of early role-playing gaming, where virtually everyone used cobbled-together, houseruled monstrosities that worked --only, barely-- for that specific group and most campaigns were set in crazy-quilt genre mash-ups where the likes of elves, Vikings, Amazons, dinosaurs, and robots rubbed shoulders.

How we build the games we like interests me.

 

[Ariosto]

This taking the term "nostalia" as a slight is something that confuses me.

It is not "the term". Words are interpreted in contexts. That it is taken as a slight when it is offered as a slight certainly does not confuse those who -- having been told that it is not appreciated -- offer it again.

Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.

 

[Ariosto]

I understand the retro-clone movement. It was born in 2006 ...

That's pretty fair.

Gonnerman's Project 74 goes back to 2003 at least, but that was less a "retro-clone" than BFRPG -- really a "house rules supplement" for old D&D. Jerry Stratton's Gods & Monsters (2005) was roughly "compatible with" 2E AD&D, but not really a recreation in any sense. Olivier Legrand's Mazes & Minotaurs (2006?) riffed on a "what if" scenario from Paul Elliott.

That's an interesting distinction, with those three labels.

Indeed. So, BFRPG and OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry, are "not OSR"? And The Spire of Iron and Crystal, The People of the Pit, Death Frost Doom, White Dragon Run, Earth Unleashed -- are "not OSR"? All that playing and writing and sharing are "not OSR"?

In that case, P&P, what "is OSR"?