What is OSR about?
The "revival" or "renaissance" that stands out most notably to me is in the field of publications. For a long time, there was very little in the way of new books, magazines, modules, and so on for the player of TSR-era Dungeons & Dragons. The Dragonsfoot Website had some offerings, but there seemed to be a bottleneck in production -- and free PDFs such as those were pretty much it.
Now, there are a number of restatements (to varying degrees of fidelity) of old rules sets, along with games and supplements that take less familiar directions of development. There books of new monsters, as well as collections of old standards.
There are "dungeon modules" and other such material. There are at least two magazines, Fight On! and Knockspell.
Much of the above is available printed and bound, either via Lulu or from the publishers. PDFs often are also for sale, which can help publishers pay for art and cover other costs.
Now, there are a number of restatements (to varying degrees of fidelity) of old rules sets, along with games and supplements that take less familiar directions of development. There books of new monsters, as well as collections of old standards.
There are "dungeon modules" and other such material. There are at least two magazines, Fight On! and Knockspell.
Much of the above is available printed and bound, either via Lulu or from the publishers. PDFs often are also for sale, which can help publishers pay for art and cover other costs.
The things I mentioned above are (as far as I can tell) mostly from the hands of hobbyists rather than people whose "day jobs" are turning out game product.
Kenzer & Company's Hackmaster and Troll Lord Games' Castles & Crusades both (I think) preceded most of the "grass roots" OSR initiatives. In at least one demographic, disappointment in those seemed to me to play a part in the drive to "do it ourselves".
Materials for HM "4e" and C&C tend to be pretty easy to use with the "retro-clones", and vice-versa, from what I have seen -- and of course they are all more or less compatible with material for old D&D editions.
Kenzer & Company's Hackmaster and Troll Lord Games' Castles & Crusades both (I think) preceded most of the "grass roots" OSR initiatives. In at least one demographic, disappointment in those seemed to me to play a part in the drive to "do it ourselves".
Materials for HM "4e" and C&C tend to be pretty easy to use with the "retro-clones", and vice-versa, from what I have seen -- and of course they are all more or less compatible with material for old D&D editions.
The Shaman
First Post
That fits my recollection of events as well, Ourph: the beginnings of the OSR were firmly in place before EGG's passing and well before 4e was announced.
The Shaman
First Post
It's a shame you don't live a little closer to southern California, J, 'cause I've got the campaign for you.
Except when the Old Schoolers tell you that that particular style of play was something they weren't trying to emulate
I'm sorry, but from what I've been told, "old school" isn't a single thing you can point to. There may be a test for what one person considers "old school", but when you talk to someone else, they'll give you a different test.
Henry
Autoexreginated
According to one source, OSRIC was released by poster PapersnPaychecks about the middle of 2006, and was in the works with poster Mythmere about a year or two before that. Solomoriah over on Dragonsfoot had released BFRP before that, and Castles and Crusades, maybe the first that could earn "old school inspired" status, was around, what, 2004. in the works since 2003? So the Old School stuff had really gained momentum by 2007, before 4E was officially announced later that year. Really, Swords and Wizardry was the only "old school" system I can think of announced after 4E's, announcement in '07.
Umbran said:
How about "old school" more refers to any product predominantly similar in mechanics to any edition of D&D prior to 3E? I'm sure there's some disagreement, but it's the only objective factor you can point to with all the fantasy games that are in consideration in this thread.
Last edited:
The Greene Knight
First Post
The OSR? It's like porn. I know it when I see it.
(Allusion to recent TARGA talks fully intended)
(Allusion to recent TARGA talks fully intended)
Except when the Old Schoolers tell you that that particular style of play was something they weren't trying to emulate
I'm sorry, but from what I've been told, "old school" isn't a single thing you can point to. There may be a test for what one person considers "old school", but when you talk to someone else, they'll give you a different test.
I was making a joke (although there's some truth to it, in my own experiences at least).
In the end, it means system, I think -- simply by virtue of the fact that peoples' experiences were so very different, given the same time period and the same rules set. And as well it should be: no form of entertainment is so mutable, so audience dependent as RPGs. That everyoen recalls The Moathouse, but remembers it somewhat differently is the ultimate feature of RPGs. We have both unique experiences and common experiences -- in the same experiences. That is something that is precious and worthwhile.
I like "old school" games because they do what I want them to do -- get the hell out of the way. And I don't mean in the "we only rolled dice twice last night" kind of way. Rather, "we only looked at the rulebook/our character sheets/the battleboard twice last night" kind of way. Part of that is familiarity, certainly, but part of it is blank spaces between the rules where a combination of good judgement and dramatic flair create the game. Maybe "rules light" is the term, though I don't think so: I love AD&D 1E above all (not least because of the DMG) and it is pretty fiddly. There's a lot of rules in there. It's lighter than 3E, certainly, but crunchier, I think, than 2E or BECM D&D.
Anyway, everytime I think I can define "Old School" it ends up like art and porn: I know it when I see it. [EDIT: Apologies to The Green Knight]
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
I believe that what is now percieved as OSR (Old School Revival/Renaissance) began with the introduction of 3rd Edition. While there was possibly as much objection to the introduction of 2nd edition the objectors did not have a widely accessible form of group communication as we have now on the internet. Oh, the internet was THERE, it just wan't widely available. Interestingly, I recall at the time of 3E that those who objected to 3E seemingly on general principles were typically called Luddites as opposed to grognards. Anyway, in addition to being able to complain publicly and have those complaints widely seen there was another important difference from the time of the introduction of 2E as a new edition - that is that the previous editions would cease seeing any and all official support.
Furthermore, it's my perception that the WotC approach to the game began to differ. The official rules were presented as being quite paramount. They never said the official rules should trump your personal preferences and house rules, but they seemed quite happy to let you believe that to be the truth. They way they came to structure their new ruleset also DISTINCTLY shifted a large portion of control of the game away from the DM and into the hands of the players.
Certainly, I personally came to find this ever more objectionable. It may not have constituted the causes/effects of the "movement" but it comprises my own motivations for embracing it.
Someone asked upthread that if they preferred to use a newer edtion but in a different way if they were to be considered OSR. YES, they would because they reject the idea that the rules as presented must be obeyed and that ANY way they choose to use them within their own gaming group is not just viable but PREFERABLE to assuming that someone else knows best how you and your group can/should employ any rules.
Understandably, there came to be a wider and wider disconnect between those who enjoyed more personalized-yet-freeform rulesets and those who seemed to know only that newer=better(always) and official=superior to houserules because someone thought it more profitable for EVERYONE to believe such things. This is why my mantra is that Old School is not about what edition you play - but how you play it. Too many seem to be coopting the "OSR" as closer to an Edition War - that newer editions are objectively inferior. The differences then in what OSR is supposed to be a bout can be subtle, but it's important to distinguish.
As an Old School adherent I believe that while I prefer the older mechanics it does not affect MY enjoyment or game preferences a whit that someone else should find 4E mechanics wildly preferable. I believe that it is not just preferable but a superior approach to the game for the DM to have broad, sweeping powers of absolute authority - but to be expected to rule with as light a touch as possible. I don't care that some people prefer character construction in and of itself as the key to enjoyment of the game but strenuously object to the rules themselves not embracing with equal fervor the possibility that as much or even vastly more can be made of other aspects of gameplay.
Such are the concepts that OSR SHOULD be promoting, IMNSHO.
Furthermore, it's my perception that the WotC approach to the game began to differ. The official rules were presented as being quite paramount. They never said the official rules should trump your personal preferences and house rules, but they seemed quite happy to let you believe that to be the truth. They way they came to structure their new ruleset also DISTINCTLY shifted a large portion of control of the game away from the DM and into the hands of the players.
Certainly, I personally came to find this ever more objectionable. It may not have constituted the causes/effects of the "movement" but it comprises my own motivations for embracing it.
Someone asked upthread that if they preferred to use a newer edtion but in a different way if they were to be considered OSR. YES, they would because they reject the idea that the rules as presented must be obeyed and that ANY way they choose to use them within their own gaming group is not just viable but PREFERABLE to assuming that someone else knows best how you and your group can/should employ any rules.
Understandably, there came to be a wider and wider disconnect between those who enjoyed more personalized-yet-freeform rulesets and those who seemed to know only that newer=better(always) and official=superior to houserules because someone thought it more profitable for EVERYONE to believe such things. This is why my mantra is that Old School is not about what edition you play - but how you play it. Too many seem to be coopting the "OSR" as closer to an Edition War - that newer editions are objectively inferior. The differences then in what OSR is supposed to be a bout can be subtle, but it's important to distinguish.
As an Old School adherent I believe that while I prefer the older mechanics it does not affect MY enjoyment or game preferences a whit that someone else should find 4E mechanics wildly preferable. I believe that it is not just preferable but a superior approach to the game for the DM to have broad, sweeping powers of absolute authority - but to be expected to rule with as light a touch as possible. I don't care that some people prefer character construction in and of itself as the key to enjoyment of the game but strenuously object to the rules themselves not embracing with equal fervor the possibility that as much or even vastly more can be made of other aspects of gameplay.
Such are the concepts that OSR SHOULD be promoting, IMNSHO.
