Trollsmyth Distills the OSR (for me) (plus good links!)

[kesher]

Trollsmyth: He'll Save Every One of Us!

[Finarvyn]

An interesting article. While I agree with the philosophy of the Pundit's definition, I certainly agree that it's too wordy for old school. That's kind of ironic, actually.

[oakesspalding]

How about replacing this-

OSR: a design philosophy of creating systems, settings and adventures that fit within the boundaries of old-school mechanics and concepts; that is, either directly utilizing features that were in existence in the period before the advent of 2nd edition AD&D; or features that, in spite of not having historically existed at that time, could have existed in that period without the addition of material or design concepts that are clearly the product of subsequent ideas or later theories.

With this-

OSR: Designing or playing RPGs like they were designed or played in the 70's and 80's.

[kesher]

Oaks: Sorry man--that first one made my eyes cross.

The second one, however, I can roll with (pun intended), with the caveat of "...were or might have been played."

[oakesspalding]

I'm with you, Kesher, but in the end I thought it was redundant and I was trying to squish it down as much as possible so it could be remembered in a late-night parking lot. I think if you say "like" games of the 70's and 80's that sort of covers the "might have beens".

Trollsmyth wrote an awesome post. My only quibble is reducing it to one thing like "rulings not rules." I think that's a fundamental one but not the only one. If there's any one thing, I think you have to go with the time period.

[kesher]

Trollsmyth wrote an awesome post. My only quibble is reducing it to one thing like "rulings not rules." I think that's a fundamental one but not the only one. If there's any one thing, I think you have to go with the time period.

You know, that's a really good distinction that I don't know anyone's ever focused on quite that clearly...

[aldarron]

OSR, an acronym variously interpreted, represents an appreciation of a traditional approach to Role Play gaming in which textual materials are considered inspirational, or advisory, the referee is the arbiter of the game, and game characters are generally as vulnerable to death or hardship as their opponents of equal power. Game Play exhibits a preference toward in character discussion and unexposed rule operation. OSR games typically also tend to favor rules light systems, but by no means exclusively so.

[kesher]

Game Play exhibits a preference toward in character discussion and unexposed rule operation.

You know, I'd say almost the opposite, at least when it comes to the OSR-minded people I've played with.

OSR games typically also tend to favor rules light systems, but by no means exclusively so.

I agree with the point, but the term "OSR games" gives me a rash; OSR-inspired? Sure. Games developed with an OSR approach? Maybe.

The whole definition game bothers me, I guess, because IMO the OSR is a mindset, unconnected to any particular set of rules or even any general template for rules. However, the use of "traditional" resonates with me, and seems to be almost a synonym for "games designed in the 70s and 80s"...

[tetramorph]

Wow, that was some pretty intense posting about a game that is supposed to bring us joy and fun in fellowship with other people.

Nevertheless, I liked his definition. It seems fine to me. I don't mind words and "philosophy," or "theory." I rather like that stuff. I think it is because I rather like that stuff that I wound up becoming attracted to the OSR when I returned to RPGs as a hobby just over a year ago.

Oakspalding cleared things up, as usual. I do think it is good to emphasize the DIY, "rules lite" and war-gaming roots aspect of this stuff, if for no other reason than to give those who don't know what "'70s and '80s" RPG playing felt like.

Aldarron's definition is great too. For me, as I have posted in other places on this forum, I think it is all about returning to a place where RPGs are trying to game an inherited traditional literary and mythological legendaria as western human beings. This I would oppose to the way in which RPGs now generate their own self-referential internal worlds (™ "chime noise") and systems for some kind of insane sense of "consistency."

In plane terms, when I fight a vampire, I don't want some twilight heart-throbe asking me to feel sorry for his wayward soul and just give a little love. I want something in a tall cape with pale skin and watery eyes "vanting to suck my blood," and I stake him in the heart and save the day. When I see a hoard of goblins raiding my village, I don't want to have to worry about their "culture and language," what "motivates them" and what gods they worship so I can be sensitive to their invading needs. I have no moral qualms about freeing their heads from their torsos. They are fell creatures. I want to send them back to the slime from whence they came. Etc. This is the inherited and mythomorphic legendaria we have received from oral tradition, literature, and well, cinematic tropes. It has done something for human souls for thousands of years. I want in on that action. That is part of OS to me.

Thanks for starting this thread, Kesher.

[talysman]

If anything defines the OSR, it's a rejection of the belief that old school D&D is badly designed or not as fun. Thus, some reject all newer D&D, some just prefer old over new, some give both old and new equal time, some design personal versions of D&D with or without newer features.

[oakesspalding]

Oct 15, 2014 12:50:53 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

In plane terms, when I fight a vampire, I don't want some twilight heart-throbe asking me to feel sorry for his wayward soul and just give a little love. I want something in a tall cape with pale skin and watery eyes "vanting to suck my blood," and I stake him in the heart and save the day.

Who was it who said, 'D&D is: I'm Gandalf. You're Conan. Now let's go kill Dracula'?

[Deleted]

Oct 15, 2014 13:33:40 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

Oct 15, 2014 12:50:53 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

In plane terms, when I fight a vampire, I don't want some twilight heart-throbe asking me to feel sorry for his wayward soul and just give a little love. I want something in a tall cape with pale skin and watery eyes "vanting to suck my blood," and I stake him in the heart and save the day.

Who was it who said, 'D&D is: I'm Gandalf. You're Conan. Now let's go kill Dracula'?

That's Jeff Rients:
jrients.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-swords-sorcery-dungeons-dragons.html

Friday, May 21, 2010
On swords, sorcery, dungeons, dragons

I think genre is one of those concepts that's handy in passing conversation but slippery when you try to look at it too closely. At the surface level of "does this have swordfights and magic spells?", Mr. Raggi is entirely on the ball in calling D&D swords & sorcery. Meanwhile Mr. Paladin in Citadel points out how easily the basic assumptions of the S&S genre can be undermined in play. In actual day-to-day life I have no problem describing D&D to a newbie as something like "You play Conan, I play Gandalf. We team up to fight Dracula." On the other hand, ascribing any genre to such a wide-sweeping vehicle as D&D makes about as much sense as declaring that a clarinet is a jazz instrument. Sure, you can get a crapload of Dixieland out of the thing, but it can also play a zillion other kinds of music. I mean, have you seen the entirely awesome new pdf Terminal Space? It's friggin' OD&D in outer space, man. And you roll a new 3d6 stat for your PC called Tech Level. If you roll low enough you get to play a cave man in outer space! Put that in your genre and smoke it!

So yeah, D&D is a swords & sorcery game. That's a handy thing to say. But at some fundamental level it makes no sense, just like pretty much every other oversimplification we use in our daily lives.

[kesher]

Of COURSE it was Rients...

[tdenmark]

The OSR is a gestalt of various individuals interests in early RPG's. Since early can mean different things depending on when you entered the hobby, the OSR can be an evergreen "movement". We might shudder to think someday future grognards will consider 4th edition D&D to be "old school" and try to recreate it with the tools they will have available then (in a holodeck! one can only wish...), but as soon as you try to define it too strictly it kind of just falls apart - like any gestalt does, you have to sort of just 'get' the individual parts and get a sense of the whole.

Look at it this way, "early" Christian writings can date as far up as 200 years or later after the events occurred.

In a bigger historical context even the RPG materials coming out now are "early".

[aldarron]

It was a bit off the cuff, but I was thinking broad and simple.

Oct 15, 2014 12:37:03 GMT -6 kesher said:

Game Play exhibits a preference toward in character discussion and unexposed rule operation.

You know, I'd say almost the opposite, at least when it comes to the OSR-minded people I've played with.

Yeah, I was back and forth on this one. I was trying to convey, based on admittedly subjective experience, the sense I get that when I'm playing newer RPG's the rules seem up front and a constant part of the conversation. Whereas my experiences with older games is the rules, while definitely brought up, tend to take a back seat to descriptive narrative, being mostly dice talk.

Oct 15, 2014 12:37:03 GMT -6 kesher said:

OSR games typically also tend to favor rules light systems, but by no means exclusively so.

I agree with the point, but the term "OSR games" gives me a rash; OSR-inspired? Sure. Games developed with an OSR approach? Maybe.

The whole definition game bothers me, I guess, because IMO the OSR is a mindset, unconnected to any particular set of rules or even any general template for rules. However, the use of "traditional" resonates with me, and seems to be almost a synonym for "games designed in the 70s and 80s"...

Yeah agreed. and mindset, definitely.

[Deleted]

I think there is an idea of oldschool D&D, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real OSR, only an entity,
something illusory, and though maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: It's simply not there.

[kesher]

You know, I can live with that--"If you meet the OSR on the road, kill it!"

[Ynas Midgard]

The problem with with associating the OSR only with rulings, not rules is that White Wolf games in the '90s explicitly mentioned in their rules they are merely a framework, do what you want with them (and indeed, if one takes a look at their forums, there are plenty of folks house ruling it, creating fan material, entirely new games based on the rules, changing canon, etc.).

So... If OSR is definable, the definition certainly needs to be more accurate than that.

By the by, I can totally agree with Ron Edwards, that is the "OSR" has to do more with marketing than with anything else. Now, we can define the OSR however we want to (play philosophy, system design philosophy, presentation philosophy, etc.), that won't mean there isn't a marketing tag that we may or may not call "OSR" or "old-school" (to some people, the two terms are equivalent).

[kesher]

I don't know the context in which Ron might of said that, but indeed, the same struggle happened with games being labeled, and then essentially marketed, as "Forge games", even though all the Forge ever was, was a forum for discussion of an ever-evolving philosophical/mindset approach to thinking about and designing games.

Kinda like the OSR...

(...and I apologize for the terrible run-on sentence.)

[talysman]

I can't agree with Ron Edwards on that at all. To use *his* terminology, I see the OSR as a rejection of a focus on Gamist/Narrativist design over Simulationist preferences.

[Deleted]

Dunno, guys, I don't want to abuse my mod batch by forcing you into consenting to my opinion, bbut I think the OSR is given too much credit,
and way too much importance. It's a marketing label, and little more; the main distinction being that a the term is used by people who want to sell you stuff,
as opposed to a cultural movement that doesn't rely on immediate consumption.

As in, I would wager, Dragonsfoot, or this page, exponentially more important for the resurgence of oldschool gaming concepts than the OSR blogosphere.
The difference being, Len Lakofka's Lendore series sequels, they don't make money for the usual towncriers.

Or in other words, I play what other people consider "oldschool D&D". Yet, I am not a member of the OSR; as I assume you don't label yourselves part of it, either,
at least not NECESSARILY, as in, as a requirement to participate in what you do. - I wish other people would stop labeling me and my actions out of selfish interests.

[tetramorph]

I have read in those blog posts linked out above and in some of the posts here this consistent dismissal of OSR as "just a marketing label," and this really rubs me the wrong way and I am not sure what to make of it.

There are some types (economics PhDs, businessmen, social Darwinians, etc.) who understand all things in economic terms. Fair enough. But it is a little bit like Schelling's "dark night in which all cows are black." Or, as in the Incredibles "when everyone is special, no one is special." If everything is so-and-so, then nothing is so-and-so. Everything is a marketing niche. Great. But saying that doesn't help us understand it much. I don't think that is how most people saying this about the OSR intend it, however.

Another reason why people say that something is "just a marketing label," is in order to say something derogatory or pejorative about it. That is to say "if they are trying to sell something, they can't be trusted, it is not genuine, it is only genuine if it is free," or something like that. You know, like the Beatles, "can't buy me love." And who would argue with the Walrus? I won't. I call this the reductive use of economics. If you can reduce an artifact or a person's motives to the economic, then you can dismiss it. I don't like this kind of arguing, in general, because as human beings we are inherently economical, even if that doesn't solely or reductively define us. Not all things that are "marketing niches" are bad things. You can have both a marketing niche and a genuine community. Those terms are not inherently mutually exclusive.

But if what some folks mean is that all the OSR ever was was some evil business genius' evil plan to dupe us into thinking that we were a community but really we are just his tools then I just simply don't buy this story. I just don't buy it. I do not see evidence of this. I look at this very internet forum and see a bunch of folks that are interested in reviving old school RPG playing. We have a "community," of sorts. And we are having fun.

It reminds me of a story I once heard. A Baptist asked an Episcopalian, "do you believe in infant baptism?" The Episcopalian replied, "believe in it? Hell, I've seen it."

Am I hearing this tone from some folks right? Something like this: "Because some people sell things with an "OSR" label, therefore the OSR has no culture to it, and no community to it."

Yet here we are.

I do not wish to label anyone. But I will label myself. I am a self-declared member of the OSR. And it think it is a really cool and fun creative movement and community to be a part of. Here we are. Thanks for being here. I am having fun.

[oakesspalding]

Well, I put the 'OSR' label proudly on my blog, but I don't see it on many games. (Actually I've never seen it.) So obviously it's one of those virtual labels. Okay, let's admit there is this virtual OSR marketing label. Labels don't usually work (for marketing purposes) unless they mean something or at least unless people think they mean something. So what do people think the label means? Or is the claim that people who buy things with that label are so stupid they don't even know what it means?

Maybe we are stupid. But what's more stupid,

1. Spending $150.00 for Dungeons & Dragons because it has the 'Dungeons & Dragons' label on it, or
2. Spending $4.95 for, say, Delving Deeper because it has the 'OSR' label on it?

Just asking.

[waysoftheearth]

Oct 17, 2014 16:43:19 GMT -6 oakesspalding said:

what's more stupid,

1. Spending $150.00 for Dungeons & Dragons because it has the 'Dungeons & Dragons' label on it, or
2. Spending $4.95 for, say, Delving Deeper because it has the 'OSR' label on it?

Just for the record, Delving Deeper has no 'OSR' label on it

[aldarron]

Tetramorph - well said. Community yes, Gemeinschaft; that's exactly the right word. I've never put OSR on anything I've done because it is unnecessary, and, if anything, gets in the way of marketing.

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2014 15:53:45 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

If everything is so-and-so, then nothing is so-and-so. Everything is a marketing niche. Great. But saying that doesn't help us understand it much. I don't think that is how most people saying this about the OSR intend it, however.

I get exactly the opposite impression. Meaning that there's a certain kind of people who appeal to our sense of community whenever it fits their needs. A lot of subpar content or outright vapor ware has been pitched by them. How come nobody talked about the OSR when the online D&D community was at its peak, which was perhaps between 2005 and 2007? - My rather cynical approach is, because there was not as much to sell as today.

I am totally in accordance with you when it comes to the rest, though: We are a great community, and we can rightfully claim culture and tradition. But what annoys me like few other things within our hobby is when people I consider unfit for the role assume roles as "community heralds", or "community experts", or whatever. Our community already has a name: We are players of D&D. And we speak for ourselves.

[makofan]

To me OSR is grabbing some rules, grabbing some people, and having fun

[robertsconley]

The OSR is about people who promote, play, and publisher for classic editions of D&D and similar games along with other things that interest them.

Comments
OSR isn't solely about classic D&D because gamers are people and not caricatures. They have other interests. For example Dan Proctor, Gobliniod Games, and Pacesetter Games. Jeff Rients and Encounter Critical. Over time the OSR becomes about other things.

I consider an accurate observation that the OSR is centered on classic D&D. This keeps it grounded as classic D&D is a specific game not subject to change being out of print. But because of the interests of people who label themselves as part of the OSR there are no exact boundaries only a shifting fuzzy edge that changes as people join and drop out.

Because the work with classic D&D rests on the use of the Open Game License and open content. Because of the Internet, Print on Demand, and the rise of computer technology. The OSR an expression of what people want and will remain that way because gatekeepers are not possible. This is unlike Pathfinder or Dungeons & Dragons (or Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC,etc) which are brand names can mean whatever their owners say it means.

The above two means that it is possible for somebody to do something that is not based on classic D&D but be accepted as part of the OSR. For example Goodman Games and the DCC RPG along with Castle & Crusades (a bit after the fact in C&C case). The DCC RPG because Goodman Games actively courted and participated in the OSR in the process of developing their game. C&C because it is out of the box compatible with classic D&D adventures and settings.

For the majority of gamers who are aware of the term OSR is it is synonymous with gamers who play, promote, or publish for classic D&D. Note here I not saying that what the OSR is about, but what the majority perceive it to be.

The side effect is that anybody playing, promoting, and publishing for classic D&D gets labeled as part of the OSR whether they want too or not.

I know what I want to do as a OSR gamer/publisher but I know that it is a just a small drop is a far larger pond of activity. That at best I see only a slice of what going on. The best I can do is relay my observation of what actually going on rather than what I wish was going on.

That the problem with the RPGPundit posts on the OSR. They all reflect what he wishes the OSR to be about. That OK but he doesn't get that it will largely be limited to he wishes. Which is not precisely the same what I wish, or what you wish. That what the OSR is arises of EVERYBODY does not a small group, a company, or an individual.

Where the OSR should pat itself on the back is in the practical demonstration that older games that people considered broken, incoherent, overly fussy, etc can be fun and can accommodate a wide variety of play styles. That new games and new products can be built on their design and mechanics and be fun and interesting to play.

In my opinion if that all the OSR is about then it done its job.

[Deleted]

The OSR is people disagreeing about what the OSR is.

[Deleted]

I think back over the last how ever many years it has been since the term OSR started being bandied around and with everything I have read over that entire time period and including this thread I still have no real clear idea of what the OSR is. I have read all kinds of different definitions, some are really narrow and some are really wide. As the RPG Pundit said there are definitions out there by people who claim there is no definition. One thing the RPG Pundit and I agree on is his opinion of Ron Edwards. Ron Edwards whose whole existence is centered around trying to eliminate fun from the universe. I do not fully buy the RPG Pundits definition, since it is quite broad and I suspect that our definitions of old school would lack a lot of having major overlap.

But whatever the OSR is, it is definitely something that I am not part of. In addition, there is the whole renaissance or revival or resurrection, or return or whatever you have the R stand for. To me Old School is Old School, period, end of the sentence. There is no R in my Old School. I've been old school the whole time and have never changed away from it so there is nothing to revive or resurrect. I understand that there are people trying old school for the first time or for the first time in years, but to me that is just normal or if you have to have an R, then perhaps recruitment.

I define old school this way, OD&D my way seasoned with any good ideas I run across anywhere. Blatant new school abominations are not good ideas. Probably best I don't make a list here! Lets just say if it really slows the game down or makes you have to write a lot of additional information on your character sheet, I don't consider it to be a good idea. That is why even 1st AD&D is IMO not truly an old school game, at least not more than partially.

As for the OSR I don't really see it as being very relevant. I don't see any purpose in creating a label that people can misuse and claim their work is OSR when it is clearly garbage with no old school to it. I don't see the lack of a label preventing any retro-clone or retro-game or retro-game materials from being produced. The only label I really want to see on something that I might be enticed to try is the simple statement "This item is fully compatible with the original 1974 roleplaying game." If that statement turns out to be a lie, then it should be shouted from the hilltops that "so and so" produces garbage and can not be trusted. Anyone can use a definition to claim their product is OSR, but it is a lot tougher to claim compatibility and not deliver.

I have my beater copy of OD&D at the table, I have my legally purchased pdf from a few years back and that is really nearly all I need. There are thousands of posts here and at DF and on the blogs that contain more ideas than I will ever have time to use. Most resources to use at the table I can create myself at the computer. The only things I need or at least want that I can not do myself are artwork and really sweetly drawn maps. I don't/can't create art no matter how much I wish that I could and it offends me that there are so many people with fantastic artistic ability and they not only don't make their living doing it they don't even make any money on the side doing it and if I possessed their talent you would have a hard time getting me to do anything other than draw.

If I had the money to spend and I could get custom work done, the products I would most like to buy are custom art and custom maps. Unfortunately both of those items would be outside the bounds of what I an afford to spend.

As far as the OSR it is my hope that everyone who claims to be part of it will be conscientious in creating good old school material and the ones who don't produce old school materials that are good or at least useful or otherwise will be outed for what they really are. In addition, I think it is extremely wrong for someone to be told that they are part of the OSR or any other group if they say, no I am not, I am just over here doing my thing and I am not part of that.