OSR My definitions for OSR

Not content with simply admitting it cannot be defined, I went ahead and gave it definition.

The trouble with defining the Old School Renaissance is that it's not one thing but three! In fact, that's what gives it such power.

Behold, the trinity...

1. OSR is a sign or badge of compatibility with early D&D. From a marketing standpoint, products labeled OSR should be more or less usable with original/basic D&D, AD&D, 2nd edition, 5th, and possibly even 3rd and 4th if one doesn't mind a little conversion work, scaling things back, etc.
2. OSR is a style of play that lends itself to guidelines not scripture, DIY, non-standardization, wild-eyed anything goes creativity, freewheeling spur-of-the-moment improvisation (I'll give it a 1 in 6 chance of happening), and player-character determined campaigns, while avoiding character optimization, rules bloat, and roll play vs. roleplay.
3. OSR is an aesthetic. The movement sprang from nostalgia of the 1970's and 80's: art, literature, sex, themes, attitudes, adventures, worlds... everything from an earlier period of tabletop gaming (when many of us were in or near adolescence). That which is considered classic, vintage, retro, and old school is sometimes called OSR even though it bears little resemblance to D&D. The Call of Cthulhu RPG, for example.

Click to expand...

You can read the full blog post here: http://vengersatanis.blogspot.com/2014/10/osr-defined.html


Thanks,

VS

That's actually the best OSR description that I ever seen... good job

I would strongly disagree with the 1st premise. OSR = TSR era D&D/AD&D. Not 3rd, not 4th, and certainly not 5th which IMHO, is less easy to convert than 3rd edition, thanks to bounded accuracy completely changing the ranges for AC and to hit rolls. Up to a certain point, 3e monsters have the same HD (albeit with bigger bonus hp) and AC and even damage that pre 3-e monsters do.

And then, again, because of bounded accuracy, the power curve is different. A group of 6-8 kobolds is a fair challenge for a 1st level party in TSR era D&D, but soon becomes trivial unless you get cute with traps and stuff. In 5E, it's still a fair challenge for mid level parties. (Not saying that is good or bad, just different)

And the 2nd part smacks of general elitism. I.e, if I don't like it, it's "roll-play" while what I like is "role-play". Some people like combat, some people like adventuring and exploration, some people like telling stories. System can play a role, but in reality, it's the players that decide that, not the system. And ultimately it's a game, so rolling dice does matter, just as much as playing a role. How much of each type should really be up to what suits the group.

And I'm not sure about the 3rd part either. Most recent Swords & Wizardry products are just re-statted Pathfinder or 3e products. You have Lamentations of the Flame Princess which is probably more Werner Herzog than anything else. You have things like Spears of the Dawn or Arrows of Indra which are fairly serious attempts at playing in non-European cultures. There's a handful of gonzo stuff, a smattering of attempts at swords & sorcery (Crypts & Things for instance). There are westerns and space games and steampunk and cyberpunk games. I don't think there really is one esthetic, other than a sense of "do it yourself"

MichaelSomething said:

That's actually the best OSR description that I ever seen... good job

Click to expand...

Thanks, hoss!

VS

trancejeremy said:

I would strongly disagree with the 1st premise. OSR = TSR era D&D/AD&D. Not 3rd, not 4th, and certainly not 5th which IMHO, is less easy to convert than 3rd edition, thanks to bounded accuracy completely changing the ranges for AC and to hit rolls. Up to a certain point, 3e monsters have the same HD (albeit with bigger bonus hp) and AC and even damage that pre 3-e monsters do.

And then, again, because of bounded accuracy, the power curve is different. A group of 6-8 kobolds is a fair challenge for a 1st level party in TSR era D&D, but soon becomes trivial unless you get cute with traps and stuff. In 5E, it's still a fair challenge for mid level parties. (Not saying that is good or bad, just different)

And the 2nd part smacks of general elitism. I.e, if I don't like it, it's "roll-play" while what I like is "role-play". Some people like combat, some people like adventuring and exploration, some people like telling stories. System can play a role, but in reality, it's the players that decide that, not the system. And ultimately it's a game, so rolling dice does matter, just as much as playing a role. How much of each type should really be up to what suits the group.

And I'm not sure about the 3rd part either. Most recent Swords & Wizardry products are just re-statted Pathfinder or 3e products. You have Lamentations of the Flame Princess which is probably more Werner Herzog than anything else. You have things like Spears of the Dawn or Arrows of Indra which are fairly serious attempts at playing in non-European cultures. There's a handful of gonzo stuff, a smattering of attempts at swords & sorcery (Crypts & Things for instance). There are westerns and space games and steampunk and cyberpunk games. I don't think there really is one esthetic, other than a sense of "do it yourself"

Click to expand...

Part 1 is open to interpretation. As you said in your critique of part 2, it depends on the group. Personally, I think the bounded accuracy supports the case for 5e being much like 70's and 80's D&D.

Part 2 might come off as elitist but it's what RPGs were originally about. Exploration, combat, and social interaction but with less gaming the system, character optimization, a rule for everything, etc. Old school campaigns seemed to be more character driven, and by that I mean a character's personality, likes, dislikes, allegiances, etc. rather than what feat he took at what level, prestige class, just the right combo of this and that.

Regarding part 3, just because a few current OSR products don't live up to the consensual aesthetics many of us have in our head about fantasy gaming in the 70's and 80's, doesn't mean they aren't trying or tried but missed the mark. I can't speak for all OSR RPGs, supplements, adventures, etc., but if they're trying to be OSR or fit that label, then I expect them to have a certain vibe - even if that vibe is nebulous.

Thanks for the comment,

VS

I dislike Point 3 where you're claiming games like Call of Cthulhu as part of the OSR just because they existed at the same time as the editions of D&D that your first point admits the OSR is about. I certainly don't recognise my experiences with RuneQuest and Traveller and Chivalry and Sorcery in point 2, either. It's one of my pet peeves about the OSR, that they claim association with all sorts of games that are utterly unlike the D&D editions that are their focus.

Also, regarding your point 2. You know what game I've been playing recently that fits it best? Fate.

Bluenose said:

I dislike Point 3 where you're claiming games like Call of Cthulhu as part of the OSR just because they existed at the same time as the editions of D&D that your first point admits the OSR is about. I certainly don't recognise my experiences with RuneQuest and Traveller and Chivalry and Sorcery in point 2, either. It's one of my pet peeves about the OSR, that they claim association with all sorts of games that are utterly unlike the D&D editions that are their focus.

Also, regarding your point 2. You know what game I've been playing recently that fits it best? Fate.

Click to expand...

You may dislike it, but that's the reality many OSR gamers/fans/adherents have. OSR is a broad spectrum, a very big tent.

As for Fate, I'm sure a talented GM or group can try to emulate one system with another. However, for most OSRers, Fate is the antithesis of the old school renaissance. I'm not going to argue that, as I've only read through Fate. Never played it. But if it's similar enough to Dungeon World, then maybe. Some OSRers love that RPG and believe it fits the criteria.

VS

VengerSatanis said:

You may dislike it, but that's the reality many OSR gamers/fans/adherents have. OSR is a broad spectrum, a very big tent.

Click to expand...

If what you claim about the characteristics of the OSR in point 2 are accurate, how do you thing CoC (or RuneQuest, or Traveller) do at meeting them? Those games have their own style and their own way of playing, and have largely retained it from the earliest editions to today. And it's not the way the OSR Blogs I read describe how their preferred systems are supposed to operate.

As for Fate, I'm sure a talented GM or group can try to emulate one system with another. However, for most OSRers, Fate is the antithesis of the old school renaissance. I'm not going to argue that, as I've only read through Fate. Never played it. But if it's similar enough to Dungeon World, then maybe. Some OSRers love that RPG and believe it fits the criteria.

VS

Click to expand...

To quote you:
OSR is a style of play that lends itself to guidelines not scripture, DIY, non-standardization, wild-eyed anything goes creativity, freewheeling spur-of-the-moment improvisation (I'll give it a 1 in 6 chance of happening), and player-character determined campaigns, while avoiding character optimization, rules bloat, and roll play vs. roleplay.

Sounds very Fate to me.

Points 2 and 3 are distinct. A thing can be OSR by adhering to #1 and that's it. Or #s 2 and 3. Or just #3. That's why the term OSR is confusing. It represents both early D&D and RPGs that were going on at the same time, such as Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, Traveller, etc.

If that's how one (or you) play Fate, then I suppose it would be OSR. As I said, I haven't played it. Although, when I read through the latest version of the core rules, it struck me as less old school and more modern. But maybe I'm wrong...

Anyone have OSR and Fate experience enough to add their two cents?

VS

VengerSatanis said:

OSR is a sign or badge of compatibility with early D&D. From a marketing standpoint, products labeled OSR should be more or less usable with original/basic D&D, AD&D, 2nd edition, 5th, and possibly even 3rd and 4th if one doesn't mind a little conversion work, scaling things back, etc.

Click to expand...

(O)D&D and Basic (of which there are several kinds, actually) really shouldn't be conflated. I agree with trancejeremy that "OSR = TSR era D&D/AD&D" but would extend that to other TSR RPGs like Empire of the Petal Throne, Metamorphosis Alpha, Gamma World, and even Boot Hill, Gangbusters, and Top Secret, and maybe even Marvel Superheroes. I might even be inclined to include some of the non-TSR RPGs like Tunnels & Trolls, Villains and Vigilantes, Traveller, Chivalry & Sorcery, and RuneQuest, and perhaps even Bunnies & Burrows. (Yeah, I went there.) There are others but those are good examples. As such, the OSR isn't simply about compatibility with early D&D nor even about products published to emulate early D&D, but about a whole movement to play and enjoy early RPGs, and in some smaller sense includes some newer games and supplements that emulate early RPGs of many stripes.

You post about it being a broad tent but are incredibly restrictive in one sense, and far too inclusive in others, as to what the base really seems to play and enjoy.

VengerSatanis said:

OSR is a style of play that (. . .)

Click to expand...

I've always been amazed at how untrue this can be in actual play. I've been gaming since the early 70s, and RPGing since 74, and the idea that there was a particular Old School "style of play" wasn't true then and still isn't true of the OSR today.

VengerSatanis said:

OSR is an aesthetic. The movement sprang from nostalgia of the 1970's and 80's: art, literature, sex, themes, attitudes, adventures, worlds... everything from an earlier period of tabletop gaming (when many of us were in or near adolescence). That which is considered classic, vintage, retro, and old school is sometimes called OSR even though it bears little resemblance to D&D. The Call of Cthulhu RPG, for example.

Click to expand...

This idea just baffles me, as if it is somehow wrongheaded to simply say that people bring varying elements of nostalgia to any gaming they do if they've been doing it long enough. I don't think the movement "sprang" so much as became less isolated, as it has certainly always been there for most folks who played back then and still do. It might seem as if it has "sprang" up again to those who didn't play back then or those who did and took a hiatus from gaming but most of the OSR folk I know simply never stopped playing, and still play in the varied manners in which they played all along. Now, however, with the Internet and social media, other folks are just more aware of its existence and seemingly like what they see.