What is OSR about?

[robconley]

The OSR specifically refers to the blogosphere about old school games, the retro-clone phenomena, and the indie-publishing arena for material that supports those games.

I don't agree. The forums like Knights-n-Knaves, Dragonsfoot, Original D&D disscussion. Magazinzes like Fight On! All of these are considered part of the OSR by most observers.

It is however largely focused on D&D, so the emerging communities around the revivals of Traveller, and Runequest are distinct from what most consider to be the OSR. Traveller and Runequest are certainly old school.

However to confuse matter the OSR has embraced games like Mutant Future, Encounter Critical. Some effort is being made in the Swords & Planet genre that is consider part of the OSR by most Observers.

 

[Umbran]

Is it a certain style of play? If so, what are the specific aspects of the style?

I have a hard time figuring that out myself. I have had several people try to tell me the difference between "old school" and "new school" - and I keep running up against what seems to me to be the facts that nothing in the "new" school is particularly new, and the stuff in the "old" school seems pretty common in "new" materials.

I have come to think the "old" and "new" tags are not properly descriptive. YMMV.

 

[Haltherrion]

I like playing D&D nowadays in the ways that I used to play it 20-30 years ago, (or in the ways I wanted to play it 20-30 years ago). But I prefer to use a more recent edition of the game. I like what I consider the good aspects of “old school” (I prefer the term, “classic”), and I play with them today. I dislike what I consider the bad aspects of “old school” (“classic”), and I avoid them today. But I use a modern edition. So, am I an “old schooler”?

Bullgrit

I won't claim to be an old schooler but I'm with you in general on this. Within a very wide range of latitude, the rules don't make the game for me; how the game is executed matters. And while the latter editions do change things I like from a comfort point of view, I have to confess they generally also correct what I find to be glaring problems with the older systems. So couple what is for me a general improvement of game mechanics with being able to leverage the bulk of where the gaming community is and I'm all for new school.

Regarding old school play, I've been gaming continuously since 1977. And while I don't game multiple times a week like I did in high school or weekly as in college, I still manage a reasonable amount of gaming. Looking back over my game career, mostly as a ref, there really isn't much I'd steal from my early days of gaming as I like to think that I've continuously improved as a ref, and that that improvement has little to do with the system in use.

This improvement for me has to do with learning how to manage a game, work with players, deliver a strong level of entertainment that can compete with other entertainment outlets available to my players while engaging my players (which most certainly does not mean railroading them in case any wonder). And since I love world-building, it also has to do with creating better quality worlds. No dungeons packed with creatures that would eat each other for me

If I was ever in a situation where I could game weekly and had multiple game geeks (such as myself), I might go back to a more sandbox game similar to what I used to play in the early 80s but even then it would leverage more of what I've learned since the 80s. And I would see no need to go back to an older system. Aside from nostalgia, there is much more I don't like about the older systems than the newer systems.

So for those who like older systems, more power to you and I'm glad to see people engaging enough to develop something of a community. But personally as someone who has played every system, I don't see any particular attraction for the old ways.

Edit:
I guess one thing has remained constant with me over the years- I've never paid any attention to fluffy stuff in the rules and always seen fit to make my own settings and play my own style of game.

 

[The Shaman]

*snipped*

To Ourph's capsule history of the OSR, I'll simply add that in addition to gamers who continued to play pre-3e editions of D&D, like the folks at D'foot and K&K, there were some who gravitated toward older roleplaying games as they became frustrated with 3e and d20.

My personal "OSR" was Traveller, which reignited my interest in games like Top Secret, Boot Hill, and Flashing Blades.

However, as estar notes, while there was a resurgence in interest in older games, the OSR is predominately focused on pre-WOTC D&D, with more recent forays into planetary romance.

For what it's worth, I believe there is something to the argument that 'old school' is about playstyle, because even though I'm not a big D&D fan, I found much in common with the way the community at Dragonsfoot approaches roleplaying games generally, much more so than I do here.

I've also read the suggestion that one of the motivating forces driving the OSR is to remind gamers that just because a game is no longer in print or actively supported by new material, it doesn't suddenly become unplayable or obsolete. I share that sentiment, very much.



And in the irony department? As I was typing my post, the banner add on the left side of the screen was for Noble Knight Games.

 

[darjr]

To confuse things more, some of the OSR places have adopted games that in my mind are firmly in the new school, like Dragons Foot's embrace of Savage Worlds.

I know it isn't universal, but it is a point of potential confusion.

 

[TerraDave]

To Ourph's capsule history of the OSR, I'll simply add that in addition to gamers who continued to play pre-3e editions of D&D, like the folks at D'foot and K&K, there were some who gravitated toward older roleplaying games as they became frustrated with 3e and d20.

In hindsight, what I think was exceptional was how people rallied around 3E/d20 when it came out. That wasn't going to last. And so we have the "OSR", along with many other online RPG "communities".

 

[Reynard]

I have a hard time figuring that out myself. I have had several people try to tell me the difference between "old school" and "new school" - and I keep running up against what seems to me to be the facts that nothing in the "new" school is particularly new, and the stuff in the "old" school seems pretty common in "new" materials.

I have come to think the "old" and "new" tags are not properly descriptive. YMMV.

Labels rarely are, because their meaning comes from an internal rather than external source,. Confusion is bound to happen.

But here's a quick and easy test:

You(r character) enter a room with no apparent exits and a large statue in the center. Do you a) make a search/perception/etc check, or b) describe your every action down to where you place your hands and with how much pressure.

A) New School.
B) Old School.

 

[Reynard]

In hindsight, what I think was exceptional was how people rallied around 3E/d20 when it came out. That wasn't going to last. And so we have the "OSR", along with many other online RPG "communities".

I think 4E was the galvanizing foprce behind the so called OSR. While 3E did in fact get a lot of knickers in twists, 4E was a fundamental paradigm shift as opposed to 3E's "evolutionary step". I'm not making a judgement call one way or the other, just saying that because it -- mechanically, fluff wise and in assumed playstyle -- those that were on the fence and leaning toward "old school" D&D jumped right over and cried havok.

Also, I agree with above assertion that Gary Gygax's death had a lot to do with it. I have always loved AD&D, but when EGG died I actually re-read every book, evwery magazine article, every adventure by him that I own or have access to and that cemented a lot of my "old school" attitude.

 

[threshel]

*snip*
Flashing Blades
*snip*

That game comes up so rarely that I have to express my love for it:
Flashing Blades is an incredibly fun game. I find myself tweaking combat rules in nearly every other system to get that same move/countermove feel that Flashing Blades has in it's melee combat system.

/hijack.


J

 

[Ourph]

I think 4E was the galvanizing foprce behind the so called OSR.

This seems to be a common perception here at EN World, but I think it's probably a misperception. The level of activity in OSR spheres really took off a year or so before the release of 4e, fueled primarily by clone games like OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord becoming available as print products and clone-compatible adventures like Expeditious Retreat's Advanced Adventures line making their way into retail distribution. If anything the whole 3e/4e transition with Pathfinder emerging as a big player probably stole a little of the OSR's thunder.

I think the main things that fueled the post 2008 growth of the OSR were the loss of Gary and Dave and Swords & Wizardry winning a silver Ennie. From my perspective, those events really ramped up the interest in older games and their clones and fueled the "blog explosion". The fact that they occured around the emergence of a new edition of D&D was more coincidence than cause and effect in my opinion.