OSR A Historical Look at the OSR

[kenada]

I'm a member of several OSR groups, some of them pretty large, that are very progressive. Most of the original creators from the TSR days are pretty progressive.

Please don't use broad brushes because Pundit and LaNasa are loud.

My apologies if it seemed like I was doing that. I was calling it out because the series linked in the OP struck me dismissive towards the problematic people.

 

[Mezuka]

My apologies if it seemed like I was doing that. I was calling it out because the series linked in the OP struck me dismissive towards the problematic people.

I would also add that The Piazza forums (BECMI) and Dragonsfoot (AD&D1) don't allow any political discussions (from both sides). Threads are locked immediately. Members are only allowed to talk about playing the game.

 

[Aldarc]

You are right. It's a personal bugbear of mine because I was introduced to DW as a prime example of the nuOSR by someone, and it rankled. I'll edit the comment to avoid pulling the discussion off track.

Dungeon World is divisive, even within PbtA circles, but I find that it's better to let go of notions of playing DW like D&D, but, instead, it's easier to lean into the design philosophy of Dungeon World (and PbtA) when playing it. I have no pretentions about it being for everyone. It's not. Playing in accordance with its design priniciples is not a guarantee for enjoyment, but it helps. But nowadays, I wouldn't point people to Dungeon World for PbtA dungeon delving. There are better alternatives, including those that are more Dungeon World adjacent (e.g., Homebrew World, Stonetop, Freebooters on the Frontier) and those that strike out in new directions (e.g., Ironsworn, Fantasy World, etc.).

That's an interesting distinction. I usually just refer to the mid 80s thru 90s as the "middle school" since a lot of the mechanical design remained focused on similar things while the "story" was shifting.

"Middle School" works pretty well as a descriptor too. It's more consistent with old and new school monikers.

The fifth article in the series linked in the OP lists Dungeon World as Nu-OSR. I can see how it could be mistaken as such (though I’d argue it’s not a particularly good emulation of the “classic” experience).

I suspect that the article's author mistakes categorizing Dungeon World as Nu-OSR as a result of conflating its old school D&D aesthetic with its Apocalypse World design philosophy.

 

[Mezuka]

One thing is that old school players are not and were not a homogenous group. I recall very vividly discussions we had about dungeon crawling+sandboxing VS a more narrative arc story approach. That was in 1982 before Dragon Lance. We were playing AD&D 1e, not 2e.

As a group, we opted for a middle ground. We had two campaigns with lots of crawling and sandboxing but it was agreed that there was also a larger 'big' story happening for the players to thwart or to f@ck Up badly. We had read LOTR after all.

 

[Reynard]

One thing is that old school players are not and were not a homogenous group. I recall very vividly discussions we had about dungeon crawling+sandboxing VS a more narrative arc story approach. That was in 1982 before Dragon Lance. We were playing AD&D 1e, not 2e.

As a group, we opted for a middle ground. We had two campaigns with lots of crawling and sandboxing but it was agreed that there was also a larger 'big' story happening for the players to thwart or to f@ck Up badly. We had read LOTR after all.

I think that dichotomy is evident even in the earliest version of the game. There is "story" hinted at in the way the game is set up, and of course the presence of Tolkien elements exists because many of the fantasy fans at the time were at least as interested in epic tales as they were episodic heroic fantasy. D&D has had two faces from the very beginning and for my money it is at is best when the game embraces both in a single campaign.

 

[Mezuka]

I think that dichotomy is evident even in the earliest version of the game. There is "story" hinted at in the way the game is set up, and of course the presence of Tolkien elements exists because many of the fantasy fans at the time were at least as interested in epic tales as they were episodic heroic fantasy. D&D has had two faces from the very beginning and for my money it is at is best when the game embraces both in a single campaign.

Agreed. I've never changed my campaign style since then, regardless of edition. I've GMed for many different groups. All the players are happy regardless of what aspect of the game they prefer. No one feels neglected.

 

[bennet]

Dungeon World is divisive,

I think using phpBB for forum software in 2022 is more divisive.

 

[Jack Daniel]

The usual OSR response to the very, very, very tired criticism that old-school play was never a monolith and has always encompassed a diversity of play styles — best articulated by a widely-shared 2009 K&K Alehouse post by T. Foster that the author of the article in the OP also links to in Part V of the essay — basically boils down to, "Yes, we know. We already know that. We don't care; it's beside the point."

Defining a specific 'old-school' play style, even if it's pure revisionism, all but necessitates drawing hard distinctions between the way, as best as we can reconstruct, that D&D's creators originally intended the game to be played (even if that changed almost immediately once the game was in the hands of the public; even if those selfsame creators changed their own minds a few years down the road) and the way the game actually evolved during the real course of the hobby's history. The revision is the point. The alternate-history, possible-path what-if-ery is the point. The only way to get that is to close off the avenues that the history of the game has already treaded (because they are what led D&D from old-school to traditional to modern gameplay).

That, even at the risk of being a bunch of un-inclusive meanie-pantses who dare to imagine that a very specific play-style might have an actual definition to it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That, even at the risk of being a bunch of un-inclusive meanie-pantses who dare to imagine that a very specific play-style might have an actual definition to it.

I don't have a bit of a problem that they want to have a definition for a particular play style; I care quite a bit that a lot of them either by implication or outright saying so suggest it was The Way Things Were When The Game Was Played Right, both in privileging the style over others present at the same time (and thus just as right to call "old school") and over generalizing how common it was. And that's over and above the baggage they sometimes bring in with it.

 

[bennet]

I don't have a bit of a problem that they want to have a definition for a particular play style; I care quite a bit that a lot of them either by implication or outright saying so suggest it was The Way Things Were When The Game Was Played Right, both in privileging the style over others present at the same time (and thus just as right to call "old school") and over generalizing how common it was. And that's over and above the baggage they sometimes bring in with it.

Why would you care? I understand a lot of stuff, I understand why there are pronouns, why black lives matter, why a vaccinne is a good idea. But I don't understand how people can go into someones private forum and say "hey these guys are gate keeping ! this is terrible, stop them ! ".
Who cares what 10 people are doing with D&D or 100 or 10,000. It doesn't stop you from playing the game in absolutely any way you like. If they want to define OSRMYWAYDnD as the only way to "properly play D&D cause thats what Gary Gygax wanted" then let them, it doesn't encroach on YOUR freedom. Their narrower definition sounds cooler and probably more like how we played as kids, but even if they don't invite me, Im ok with it. When I played D&D 30 years ago I didn't go looking for approval on how I played, I just decided and thats what we did. So bizarre all the "gatekeeping" hysteria.