OSR IS LYING TO YOU! A reasonable discussion about OSR

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It's not about "different strokes for different folks" or "live and let live", it's always been "gatekeeping the hobby is necessary" from those types, getting furious that other games are being produced or promoted that don't follow their ideology of "old school brutalism".

You kind of answer your own half-question here.

These people are gatekeepers, wanting to keep people who aren't like them out. The fact that these particular gatekeepers are old farts means you can find them in some OSR groups*.

But you can find gatekeepers, including ones who are focused on rebuffing people who don't fit their image of who should be playing roleplaying games, everywhere including people who try that with 5E at ENWorld.

* One of the largest and most lively OSR groups on Facebook (where old people congregate) uses a rainbow flag OSR logo and is aggressively open to all people joining the group, policing gatekeeping and prejudice, and making it clear that gaming is for everyone. But as always, the bad apples in the OSR scene do a lot of damage to the overall scene's reputation.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

You kind of answer your own half-question here.

These people are gatekeepers, wanting to keep people who aren't like them out. The fact that these particular gatekeepers are old farts means you can find them in some OSR groups*.

But you can find gatekeepers, including ones who are focused on rebuffing people who don't fit their image of who should be playing roleplaying games everywhere, including people who try that with 5E at ENWorld.

* #NotAllOSRGroups - One of the largest and most lively OSR groups on Facebook (where old people congregate) uses a rainbow flag OSR logo and is aggressively open to all people joining the group, policing gatekeeping and prejudice, and making it clear that gaming is for everyone. But as always, the bad apples in the OSR scene do a lot of damage to the overall scene's reputation.

This is something I wrote as a comment a little over 4 years ago-

So to address this post more directly, I think the contribution from rogueattorney is helpful in illuminating some of the issues when it comes to discussing OSR or "old school" in general.

The first is that, as was helpfully pointed out, there was a specific movement in the very early early 2000s to clone rule-sets to enable people to play older versions of D&D. This was a specific response to the time that I think some people have forgotten (or newer players aren't aware of). Since this was just covered, it doesn't need to be dealt with in depth again, but this was a reaction against WoTC and 3e. In other words, because the older rulesets were not available, people craving the "TSR" experience instead of 3e looked to make their own, compatible rulesets (whether for OD&D, B/X BECMI RC, 1e, or 2e). Moreover, we see the explicit use of the name "old school" in two of the most prominent of these rulesets- OSRIC is Old School Reference and Index Compilation. OSE is Old School Essentials. That said, I wouldn't say that the desire to clone (or clean up a little) the older rulesets necessarily carries a philosophical component. It was just people that were worried because their favorite games had disappeared, and they would rather play the older rules than the new-fangled 3e (at that time). Notably, this was specific to D&D, simply because it arose in a very specific context of a new edition being released and older editions were not available (and would not be officially until 2013).

However, there is a separate component to this, which both involves the older rules (and retroclones) and stands independent from them. I haven't done a deep dive on this, but I would say that, arguably, it rose to prominence as a reaction to 4e. I could be wrong, but the earliest documents related to it as a philosophical movement (such as Matt Finch's primer) date to 2008. Arguably, "old school" or "OSR" is best conceived when thinking of a specific set of ideas as to "how to play" as a reaction against the direction of D&D- both 3e and the new 4e. Again, this is particular to D&Dbecause it arose both as a reaction to the current "direction" of the game, and because it presented a "historical" version of the game as the way to play. This included ideas like- resource management, regular characters (not superheroes), unbalanced scenarios that the players would have to chose how to solve, a reliance on rulings by the DM as opposed to rules, and the idea of "player skill" not "character skill" (aka, skilled play). Usually, there would be additional bits added in (mapping, hirelings, etc.).

Notably, like all movements that call for a return to the past, it presents a unified, but false vision of what the past was. Obviously, and this should go without saying, the past is not a monolith. As you know, having read Elusive Shift, there was a vast variety of playing styles and approaches to OD&D in the 70s. While I think that OSR captures some concepts from then that have fallen out of favor in more modern games, it is also necessary to point out that it is certainly not true that every game back then was an attrition-based megadungeon crawl with 10' poles and disposable waves of hirelings. As you are aware, the sheer weirdness of the games is captured by the fact that so many early RPGs were, in fact, simply spinoffs of D&D (one of my favorite anecdotes is that Superhero 2044, the first superhero RPG published in 1977, was actually the campaign notes from an OD&D game where the characters went through a portal and met up with comic book heroes).

Unfortunately, when you have a style that is explicitly rooted in the the rejection of modern gaming, it will often attract people that are along for the ride not because they are rejecting the rules of modern games, but because they are rejecting the sensibility of the people that are playing. In other words, the nostalgic attraction isn't rooted in the simplicity of the rules or the belief that these rules better allow for a better game for their table, but instead a nostalgic attraction for a time when (in their opinion) they didn't have to worry about appropriation, or risque art, or inclusive play. The adoption of OSR, for these people, is a rejection of the modern as a political statement.

...which is unfortunate. I think that the vast majority of people attracted to OSR or "old school" games, specifically to the various retroclones and modern rules versions of D&D that seem to comprise the majority of the current "old school" market, just love aspects of the play or the rules that come with OSR. Others have stripped away the rulesets even more (this is FKR, which is just the latest iteration of "rules lite, DM adjudicates" that has been part of the hobby since the 70s as well).

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I genuinely love the older games and the history involved, and I have a special appreciation for people like Sacrosanct that go out of their way to make inclusive OSR game, but it can be difficult to discuss these issues because they often get derailed for various reasons. Which is unfortunate, to me, because there are aspects of play that are worth discussing.

 

[robertsconley]

These people are gatekeepers, wanting to keep people who aren't like them out.

They can want it, but that doesn't mean they have the means to follow through and stop anyone from realizing their project in the manner the designer sees fit.

One of the main reasons I released nearly all of my published material as open content.

 

[Bae'zel]

* #NotAllOSRGroups - One of the largest and most lively OSR groups on Facebook (where old people congregate) uses a rainbow flag OSR logo and is aggressively open to all people joining the group, policing gatekeeping and prejudice, and making it clear that gaming is for everyone. But as always, the bad apples in the OSR scene do a lot of damage to the overall scene's reputation.

For sure; ever since I made a conscious decision to stay away from such forums as {REDACTED} and certain blogs, I've found that the "OSR" community is pretty chill and forward-thinking.

Again, I wouldn't care what some stodgy old farts in their insular circles think of the rest of the hobby: it just gets tiresome to get snippets of "they're ruining the hobby" or "modern gaming is not real gaming". They more or less keep to themselves these days, despite the emboldening of certain attitudes expressed in politics today.

 

[Mannahnin]

The first is that, as was helpfully pointed out, there was a specific movement in the very early early 2000s to clone rule-sets to enable people to play older versions of D&D. This was a specific response to the time that I think some people have forgotten (or newer players aren't aware of). Since this was just covered, it doesn't need to be dealt with in depth again, but this was a reaction against WoTC and 3e. In other words, because the older rulesets were not available, people craving the "TSR" experience instead of 3e looked to make their own, compatible rulesets (whether for OD&D, B/X BECMI RC, 1e, or 2e). Moreover, we see the explicit use of the name "old school" in two of the most prominent of these rulesets- OSRIC is Old School Reference and Index Compilation. OSE is Old School Essentials. That said, I wouldn't say that the desire to clone (or clean up a little) the older rulesets necessarily carries a philosophical component. It was just people that were worried because their favorite games had disappeared, and they would rather play the older rules than the new-fangled 3e (at that time). Notably, this was specific to D&D, simply because it arose in a very specific context of a new edition being released and older editions were not available (and would not be officially until 2013).

However, there is a separate component to this, which both involves the older rules (and retroclones) and stands independent from them. I haven't done a deep dive on this, but I would say that, arguably, it rose to prominence as a reaction to 4e. I could be wrong, but the earliest documents related to it as a philosophical movement (such as Matt Finch's primer) date to 2008. Arguably, "old school" or "OSR" is best conceived when thinking of a specific set of ideas as to "how to play" as a reaction against the direction of D&D- both 3e and the new 4e. Again, this is particular to D&Dbecause it arose both as a reaction to the current "direction" of the game, and because it presented a "historical" version of the game as the way to play. This included ideas like- resource management, regular characters (not superheroes), unbalanced scenarios that the players would have to chose how to solve, a reliance on rulings by the DM as opposed to rules, and the idea of "player skill" not "character skill" (aka, skilled play). Usually, there would be additional bits added in (mapping, hirelings, etc.).

A very good post, but I will note once again that part of the chronology is backwards.

The movement arose starting around 2001, in reaction to 3E, as you say. By 2004 and 2005 the terms Old School Revival and Old School Renaissance had already been coined to describe the movement which at that point had been in progress for multiple years. But no one was cloning yet, and the movement wasn't in response to the fear that the old games would disappear yet- for several years in the 2000s WotC was selling them online in PDF form, and didn't take them down until April of 2009. When they brought them back in 2013 that was a return.

The first clones were OSRIC and BFRPG, which showed up in 2006 (B/X Essentials, the original name for OSE, not until 2017). Stuff was being published in the OSR from the start; from 2000-2005 the Horde and Hoards list shows a total of 78 documented releases/publications (most of them free, so "product" might not be the best term), prior to BFRPG being released Jan 20, 2006. Those first five years are all modules, zines, and occasional other stuff like monsters or classes.

There was definitely a big new wave of energy in the OSR starting in 2007 and 2008, which is when the blog explosion started (Delta's D&D Hotspot March 2007, for example, and Grognardia March of 2008, for a couple of pillars). A number of folks started recapitulating and summarizing a ton of the prior near-decade's discussion and theorizing around then, too.

Matt Finch didn't put out his Quick Primer until 2008 because it was intended specifically to be an orientation to make it easier for WotC-era players to understand and play Swords & Wizardry, which he published that same year (and similar games).

I do think that 4E, and WotC's GSL fiasco, did push a whole new wave of people into checking out the OSR, at the same time that others jumped ship for Pathfinder. The 2009 withdrawal of the old school PDFs could conceivably have been related. WotC claimed at the time that it was from piracy concerns, but it's also possible that it was related to the GSL attempt to reclaim control of the game/get out of the OGL.

 

[Umbran]

The adoption of OSR, for these people, is a rejection of the modern as a political statement.

As Justin LaNasa pokes his face over the fence, Kilroy-style...

Just to remind folks that this isn't an issue of some distant past.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I genuinely love the older games and the history involved, and I have a special appreciation for people like Sacrosanct that go out of their way to make inclusive OSR game, but it can be difficult to discuss these issues because they often get derailed for various reasons. Which is unfortunate, to me, because there are aspects of play that are worth discussing.

Yes, well, when you invoke "Old School" you conjure the whole of the nostalgic movement, and you don't get to pick "just the good parts" for the audience.

If what one is interested in is, in fact, the aspects of play, rather than the nostalgia, maybe it is (long past?) time to stop discussing them only in their nostalgic association?

 

[Umbran]

* #NotAllOSRGroups...

An aside... how does anyone read that, today, with what's in the news recently, and not cringe?

 

[robertsconley]

The consequence of what I said about the OSR's logistics is that nobody owns the OSR or controls what can be creatively done with it. The response to bad actors is to shine a spotlight on what they are doing and let their actions speak for themselves.

That is something I have direct personal experience with.

They may control a particular social media group, company, or IP, but they do not control the OSR itself.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Again, this is particular to D&D because it arose both as a reaction to the current "direction" of the game, and because it presented a "historical" version of the game as the way to play. This included ideas like- resource management, regular characters (not superheroes), unbalanced scenarios that the players would have to chose how to solve, a reliance on rulings by the DM as opposed to rules, and the idea of "player skill" not "character skill" (aka, skilled play). Usually, there would be additional bits added in (mapping, hirelings, etc.).

Notably, like all movements that call for a return to the past, it presents a unified, but false vision of what the past was. Obviously, and this should go without saying, the past is not a monolith. As you know, having read Elusive Shift, there was a vast variety of playing styles and approaches to OD&D in the 70s.

Yes and no.

I mean, I understand the argument that nostalgia presents an idealized vision of what D&D "used to be," and that this vision is a retrojection; it's not substantive in any meaningful way.

But that's only part of the equation for me (I can't speak for anyone else). 3.X is the system I've played the most, but B/X (and occasionally 1E) has been my fallback for the past 25 years -- when I just want something which scratches the itch, and is less of a headache to run.

What the OSR movement has done for me (I can't speak for anyone else) is invite me look at the old games with fresh eyes -- eyes which have otherwise been shaped by two intervening generations. To try to actually take the original rulesets at face value and see how they work in practice, without modifications imposed by hindsight.

And by characterising the OSR movement as "unified" and "monolithic" I think you are misrepresenting it. It has a lot to offer; like anything else, some discernment is required in separating the wheat from the chaff.

Unfortunately, the chaff consists largely of reactionary and regressive political stances, which makes them especially unpalatable.

 

[robertsconley]

However, there is a separate component to this, which both involves the older rules (and retroclones) and stands independent from them. I haven't done a deep dive on this, but I would say that, arguably, it rose to prominence as a reaction to 4e. I could be wrong, but the earliest documents related to it as a philosophical movement (such as Matt Finch's primer) date to 2008. Arguably, "old school" or "OSR" is best conceived when thinking of a specific set of ideas as to "how to play" as a reaction against the direction of D&D- both 3e and the new 4e. Again, this is particular to D&Dbecause it arose both as a reaction to the current "direction" of the game, and because it presented a "historical" version of the game as the way to play. This included ideas like- resource management, regular characters (not superheroes), unbalanced scenarios that the players would have to chose how to solve, a reliance on rulings by the DM as opposed to rules, and the idea of "player skill" not "character skill" (aka, skilled play). Usually, there would be additional bits added in (mapping, hirelings, etc.).

Having been involved at the time, I think a more accurate characterization is that more than a few folks finally got to work with the systems they wanted all along. But because of IP or economic issues, like having to sell through a distributor to a game store or having enough sales to justify the capital for a print run, they couldn't.

The OSR may have started earlier, but Finch, Marshall, and Gonnerman provided a crucial piece that completed the picture. Crowdfunding in the following decade provided the coda.

Now that the OSR has completed its 2nd decade, I find most people get involved because they see the classic D&D mechanics as a good starting point for their own creative vision. A familiar, somewhat minimalist foundation that they can leverage freely.

The difference now, compared to four years ago when you wrote this, is that crowdfunding has matured, and there have been enough stellar OSR successes to put the OSR in the larger hobby's attention in a way that didn't exist before. And also helping is the hobby's growing fatigue with the latest edition of 5.X.

Notably, like all movements that call for a return to the past, it presents a unified, but false vision of what the past was. Obviously, and this should go without saying, the past is not a monolith. As you know, having read Elusive Shift, there was a vast variety of playing styles and approaches to OD&D in the 70s. While I think that OSR captures some concepts from then that have fallen out of favor in more modern games, it is also necessary to point out that it is certainly not true that every game back then was an attrition-based megadungeon crawl with 10' poles and disposable waves of hirelings. As you are aware, the sheer weirdness of the games is captured by the fact that so many early RPGs were, in fact, simply spinoffs of D&D (one of my favorite anecdotes is that Superhero 2044, the first superhero RPG published in 1977, was actually the campaign notes from an OD&D game where the characters went through a portal and met up with comic book heroes).

Because of the internet, digital technology, and open content, the OSR is not like other creative movements with the RPG hobby. The classic editions do not form a canon that somebody gets to interpret authoritatively. They form a commons and a gravitational point source, with various projects orbiting closer in, others farther out, and some achieving escape velocity to become their own thing.

The result is a substantial decentralized niche within the hobby, with no dominant publisher setting the creative tone or acting as a logistical gatekeeper.

Some people call for a return to the past, but they are only one of the myriad voices orbiting the classic editions. They don't get to define what everybody else is doing with that common inheritance.

Unfortunately, when you have a style that is explicitly rooted in the the rejection of modern gaming, it will often attract people that are along for the ride not because they are rejecting the rules of modern games, but because they are rejecting the sensibility of the people that are playing. In other words, the nostalgic attraction isn't rooted in the simplicity of the rules or the belief that these rules better allow for a better game for their table, but instead a nostalgic attraction for a time when (in their opinion) they didn't have to worry about appropriation, or risque art, or inclusive play. The adoption of OSR, for these people, is a rejection of the modern as a political statement.

...which is unfortunate. I think that the vast majority of people attracted to OSR or "old school" games, specifically to the various retroclones and modern rules versions of D&D that seem to comprise the majority of the current "old school" market, just love aspects of the play or the rules that come with OSR. Others have stripped away the rulesets even more (this is FKR, which is just the latest iteration of "rules lite, DM adjudicates" that has been part of the hobby since the 70s as well).

Anyway, those are my thoughts. I genuinely love the older games and the history involved, and I have a special appreciation for people like Sacrosanct that go out of their way to make inclusive OSR game, but it can be difficult to discuss these issues because they often get derailed for various reasons. Which is unfortunate, to me, because there are aspects of play that are worth discussing.

I don't disagree that people like that exist within the OSR. What I disagree with is treating their presence as though it gives them some special claim over what the OSR is.

The consequence of the logistics I described is that nobody owns the OSR or controls what can creatively be done with it. A person or group may control a particular social media group, company, or IP, but they do not control the OSR itself.

That is one reason I think open content is crucial. It reduces any one person or faction's ability to become a creative gatekeeper. If somebody doesn't like the direction another part of the OSR is taking, they are free to make something different or show how the rest of the OSR how it doing it wrong.