OSR Minimum Requirements for OSR?

[GMMichael]

I'm working on an OSR mashup of games, but my old-school experience goes back only as far as AD&D 2e. I'm using a modified THAC0, theatre-of-mind (no grid), classes and races, memorized spells, a thieving table, maybe roll-under skills...(don't worry - it's just for fun)

What am I missing? What makes a game OSR to you (that isn't the actual book by TSR)?

 

[Lanefan]

I'm working on an OSR mashup of games, but my old-school experience goes back only as far as AD&D 2e. I'm using a modified THAC0, theatre-of-mind (no grid), classes and races, memorized spells, a thieving table, maybe roll-under skills...(don't worry - it's just for fun)

What am I missing? What makes a game OSR to you (that isn't the actual book by TSR)?

A few possibilities; none IMO essential (except one, noted with '+') but all add to the general theme:

--- minimum requirements in certain stats for each class
--- rolled stats rather than point-buy or array +
--- a general sense among players of waiting to decide on a character concept until after seeing what the dice give you to work with
--- fast, simple character generation
--- a general sense of danger and-or lethality in the field, particularly at low levels; and slow hit point/resource recovery
--- different dice for different task resolutions, based on desired degree of granularity (e.g. a d% is more granular than d20)
--- careful player-side tracking of on-hand ammunition, rations, water, light sources, etc.

How's that?

 

[kenada]

What am I missing? What makes a game OSR to you (that isn't the actual book by TSR)?

I’d consider a game OSR if it supports the style of play described in Principia Apocrypha (rulings not rules, skilled play, encounters aren’t tuned to the PCs’ capabilities, etc). I think that’s more important than any particular mechanical aesthetic. For example, I’d consider Worlds Without Number an OSR game even though it diverges from its B/X base in several notable ways (ascending AC, saving throw categories, skills, character customization, combat, etc). However, some might not, or they might consider it OSR-adjacent rather than OSR.

 

[Davies]

Much like you're a writer when a writer says that you're a writer, an OSR game is an OSR game when OSR gamers say that it is. Content doesn't enter into it.

 

[Zardnaar]

2Es one of my favorite editions but I don't regard it as OSR.

Mostly non unified mechanics, old school multiclassing if applicable (not in B/X), less mechanics various restrictions etc.

Even if it's not to pure if you enjoy it who cares? Followed by can you get players.

Generally you'll know it when you see it. I like the B/X type stuff the best though.

 

[teitan]

OSR is more of a style of play than mechanics though they can be a benefit. By the loose definition of OSR, straight from the rules 5e, options turned off, Basic PDF, is pretty BX like OSR. Carefully selecting various bits & bobs in the DMG can reproduce a very 1e and 2e vibe.

But OSR is a style, rulings not rules (a guiding principal of 5e design originally as well). When you look at what makes up the OSR it IS mostly BX/BECMI and OD&D style games but it also is games like Dungeon/Mutant Crawl Classics that really play into that pre-1e vibe of D&D, off the cuff hijinks. It's built off a 3.x chassis but is very much not a 3.x era game and really not very similar to OD&D at all but hits all those OSR buttons while being very contemporary. Easy to house rule, easy to run on the fly. Don't restrict yourself to pure pre 3.5 era types of play. The 3 saving throws of 3.x are much easier, much more intuitive than the classic saving throws for example. Ascending AC is much easier to catch onto than descending. You can keep it classic by limiting the max AC to 30 (and most 3.x era games never really got that high anyway without heavy rule manipulation).

It's style, and yes real style requires substance, but really look at what made those games work and you will see it had little to do with system.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I find this is something of a sorites paradox. When does a game become "OSR"? How much can you remove from (or add to) it and still have it count? These are always judgment calls. It's more useful, I find, to ask for what things people consider to be markers of OSR--and, if possible, the relative importance people put on them. E.g. Lanefan considers only "rolled stats rather than point-buy or array" pretty close to non-negotiable, but the other parts are at least semi-negotiable.

Collect this data from a large number of people, and you should get a good idea of what people expect. From there, it's a matter of execution.

 

[Yora]

I think the question here is why being regarded as an oldschool game is desired in the first place.
I think generally speaking, people who call their games and campaigns oldschool don't consider AD&D 2nd edition to be oldschool anymore. While the rules have not changed much, the whole approach and presentation in regard to what fantasy roleplaying is had already changed to something very different.

Why try to make an OSR game when you you're not familiar with what OSR games are?

 

[thirdkingdom]

On my phone so not an exhaustive list, but for me some important facets of OSR-style games are:

*Morale checks
*Reaction rolls
*Retainers (also called henchmen)
*Gold for XP.
*Gameplay transitioning from dungeon to wilderness to domain-type play.

 

[Yaarel]

If using 5e mechanics (AC etcetera), how would one tweak it to feel like OSR.

For example, maybe use the Intimidate skill check for morale, and so on. (I do the check each time a team member is bloodied.)

For me, an important design is, the world is what it is. An encounter might be low tier or high tier, depending on what makes sense for that locations. Players have to learn when to fight and when to flight.