The opposite of OSR

[Morrus]

Pathfinder 2nd ed is retro compared to modern games but it's the opposite of OSR

Quoted from Disgruntled Hobbit.

So, what do YOU think is the opposite of OSR?

 

[Marc_C]

Games with resource management, like plot points, that modify a scene outside the GM's control.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

NCM.
New College Medievalism.

 

[CleverNickName]

Hmm...interesting question. I would say that the opposite would be a New School Renaissance... a revitalization and rediscovery of newer ways of thinking/playing. Things that might fit the bill:

• playing B/X rules on a virtual tabletop.
• A new version of Everquest, but it's Greyhawk.
• Great British Gaming Show: Paul, Mary, Mel & Sue run through the Temple of Elemental Evil.
• Stardew Realms: soothing farmcore game set in Faerun. Drizz't works for Joja.

In all cases, sign me up.

 

[Davies]

Quoted from Disgruntled Hobbit.

So, what do YOU think is the opposite of OSR?

FATE.

 

[Dire Bare]

Quoted from Disgruntled Hobbit.

So, what do YOU think is the opposite of OSR?

Heh.

OSR, as a genre, is vague and not everybody agrees on exactly what makes a game "OSR". So, the opposite of that is probably just as vague.

But I think in general, "old-school" D&D includes most of what TSR(1) published before going under. "New school" D&D starts with the 3rd Edition under WotC. AD&D 2nd Edition, at least towards the end, is a long transition between the two. Truly old-school seems closer to the wargaming roots of the hobby and has simpler rules, less focus on story and more focus on beating the scenario/dungeon, sometimes a more adversarial DM-style . . . but there are plenty of OSR games that don't have all of that.

Pathfinder, of course, "clones" D&D 3rd Edition. 3E and Pathfinder have more elegant designs than old-school D&D, but are more complicated, especially in character creation. Pathfinder 2E goes down the complicated character creation route even moreso. More modern games have a greater focus on story and collaborative storytelling (DM as guide rather than adversary).

Also, older games had a more "module-focused" approach compared to the more current trend of "adventure path" focus. Shorter, discrete scenarios versus longer storytelling arcs. You can knock out a module with your group in 1 to 4 sessions, you'll be playing a modern adventure path for months . . .

There seems to be a difference in settings also, although this just might be my perception or perhaps a specific trend within OSR games. OSR settings tend to be either very lightly defined generic fantasy (Greyhawk) or move into the "weird fantasy" genre (Goodman's DCC line). Modern settings tend to be sprawling, well-defined settings that incorporate a lot of anachronisms (if that's even possible in fantasy), like the Forgotten Realms and Golarion.

 

[J.Quondam]

RSO

 

[ccs]

I don't know.

 

[Retreater]

From my experience the opposite of OSR feel would be PF2 as far as games still in print that are still a part of the D&D experience. Very tight rules, character is completely defined by what's on the sheet, limitless options for character customization, a few dozen conditions, combat as sport, limitless healing outside of combat, extreme tactical movement (grid required).

 

[Reynard]

Quoted from Disgruntled Hobbit.

So, what do YOU think is the opposite of OSR?

Without looking at the thread from which the quote came, I think I can agree with DH at least insofar as this: Pathfinder 2E is very much a traditional RPG, but it is a wholly modern one. It doesn't seem to have an "old school" bone in its body. Rather, it is a carefully crafted game intended to do what traditional RPGs do well, which is engender play in which the roles of the GM and players in play are distinct and well defined. This is true of OSR games as well but PF2 goes about it in a completely different way.