|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jan 2, 2019 17:13:49 GMT -6
To me, there is a difference between OSR and simply Old-School gaming. OSR is specifically TSR-era D&D or games that are mechanically in the style of TSR-era D&D. Old-School gaming is a lot more broad, vague, and subjective. I consider stuff like Boot Hill, Gamma World, Call of Cthulhu, RECON, the Sailor Moon Role-Playing Game and Resource Book, and the first edition of Vampire: The Masquerade to all be Old School, but they are not OSR. I agree with this 100% and that's the stance I take in my blog. |
|
darien
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 135 
|
Post by darien on Jan 2, 2019 18:10:31 GMT -6
I am inclined to agree, and while I consider the first (and maybe second) editions of Vampire: The Masquerade to be old-school (but NOT OSR), I do not consider the later editions of Vampire to be old-school nor any of the other White Wolf games (with the possible exceptions of Street Fighter and the first edition of Werewolf: The Apocalypse)
Vampire 1E and Werewolf 1E were in many ways a cleverly disguised return to the old-school style of OD&D and Call of Cthulhu but with a distinctly dark modern edge that resonated with Generation X at the time (it helped that Mark Rein-Hagen himself personally cites both games as influences in the acknowledgements of VTM 1E)
Basically, Vampire was originally intended as a reaction against the sanitized mass market approach of AD&D 2E and a return to form of how things were in OD&D and early AD&D 1E, albeit in an abstract way (more in the spirit of OD&D's ethos rather than in the actual setting aesthetics)
Sadly, Mark Rein-Hagen's influence in White Wolf quickly diminished after late 1992/early 1993 and by 1996, he was ousted completely after years as a figurehead. It was Justin Achilli and his ilk that took over creative control of Vampire and with the later editions, made it a game of personal horror, pathos, and other pretentious and boring high art nonsense that most gamers now unfortunately associate with Vampire.
Vampire 1E as envisioned by Mark Rein-Hagen was an old-school horror-adventure game in spirit and with a new style of presentation, but once Achilli took over, it abandoned any pretense of the old-school mindset that made early Vampire great.
With that being said, Vampire 1E is old-school but is NOT an OSR game because it is not based on the mechanical framework of TSR-era D&D.
|
|
|
|
Post by chicagowiz on Jan 3, 2019 10:12:42 GMT -6
I was part of the 2008 resurgence and have been active (more or less) since.
For me, "OSR" is a marketing label. I use it as a hashtag and a way of marking something.
"Old school" is how I play and how I will describe my game to people.
I find that like-minded folks are in places that identify as old school, OSR, or simply "D&D". To me, all of these are conversation starters, much like a logo on a t-shirt, a hanky in a back-pocket or a badge/patch on a jacket.
And I love how this forum has a wonderful discussion without the angst.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 3, 2019 10:29:32 GMT -6
And I love how this forum has a wonderful discussion without the angst. We try hard to maintain that vibe. Sometimes angst sneaks in there, but then Rafe or one of the others stomps on it.  |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jan 3, 2019 13:36:48 GMT -6
I was part of the 2008 resurgence and have been active (more or less) since. For me, "OSR" is a marketing label. I use it as a hashtag and a way of marking something. "Old school" is how I play and how I will describe my game to people. I find that like-minded folks are in places that identify as old school, OSR, or simply "D&D". To me, all of these are conversation starters, much like a logo on a t-shirt, a hanky in a back-pocket or a badge/patch on a jacket. And I love how this forum has a wonderful discussion without the angst. The reason I'm so against calling it a "marketing" term is two-fold (and I address this in my blog.) First, "marketing" explicitly infers a financial value, and while at the height of the movement the OSR certainly had such a value, today few to no publishers see much value in slapping an OSR logo on their product. Even Goodman Games, which markets DCC as an "old school" game, does not market it as an OSR game, rather calling it an "Appendix N" game. In addition, people who call it a marketing term tend to do so with some degree of derision and vitriol, as though marketing is a bad thing or somehow robs something of its "street cred." I think it's important and valuable to separate "marketing" from "shorthand." The latter is certainly valid--when someone refers to something as OSR, we all know it's usable with any edition of D&D before third. The former is tied specifically to a sales and profit perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by chicagowiz on Jan 3, 2019 13:45:22 GMT -6
No worries, Jason. *shrug* Like I said... "For me ... "
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jan 3, 2019 14:15:23 GMT -6
No worries, Jason. *shrug* Like I said... "For me ... " Of course, and hopefully I didn't come across as too hostile. It's all just opinions and viewpoints, in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jan 3, 2019 16:14:12 GMT -6
Even Goodman Games, which markets DCC as an "old school" game, does not market it as an OSR game… …when someone refers to something as OSR, we all know it's usable with any edition of D&D before third. For this reason, I think of DCC as a sort of hybrid. It may boast a certain Old-School feel, but it also boasts of 3E Rules. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 3, 2019 16:33:51 GMT -6
Even Goodman Games, which markets DCC as an "old school" game, does not market it as an OSR game… …when someone refers to something as OSR, we all know it's usable with any edition of D&D before third. For this reason, I think of DCC as a sort of hybrid. It may boast a certain Old-School feel, but it also boasts of 3E Rules. If you go to RPGnow and click on the category "OSR" under Rule System, the first two systems listed are Castles & Crusades and DCC. Where exactly would C&C fall in this idea of cross-platforming? Otherwise, I'm on board with the whole "Old School" games idea, drop the "R". I tend to identify with the DIY ethos of the early games instead of the consumerism of later editions. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 3, 2019 17:41:04 GMT -6
No worries, Jason. *shrug* Like I said... "For me ... " Of course, and hopefully I didn't come across as too hostile. It's all just opinions and viewpoints, in the end. What key for me in regards to the group of people playing, promoting, and publishing for classic D&D, commonly labeled as the OSR, is to preserve and extend the diversity of opinions and viewpoint. Which in my opinion the best way to achieve this is to expand the range of open content under the OGL and other copyleft licenses along with teaching other how to use digital technology to realize their ideas in the form they think best. That way Chicago view of the OSR as a marketing term, others view that is a movement, still other who view it as an aesthetic, along those who view it as play style; have the things they need to in order to share, create, promote, and/or play together the editions and games they like. The incompatibilities of views are still there but are rendered moot as far as a hobbyist being able to find what they find fun and play with enjoyable company. |
|
|
|
Post by chicagowiz on Jan 3, 2019 17:44:32 GMT -6
a hobbyist being able to find what they find fun and play with enjoyable company. I tried, unsuccessfully and unofficially, but I was semi-serious, tried to get TARGA to adopt the tagline or mission of "Putting asses in chairs to play old school games". I still think that is the best approach - just play! |
|
|
|
Post by chicagowiz on Jan 3, 2019 17:45:20 GMT -6
No worries, Jason. *shrug* Like I said... "For me ... " Of course, and hopefully I didn't come across as too hostile. It's all just opinions and viewpoints, in the end. No worries! That's all we got, aside from a love of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 3, 2019 17:48:06 GMT -6
Even Goodman Games, which markets DCC as an "old school" game, does not market it as an OSR game… …when someone refers to something as OSR, we all know it's usable with any edition of D&D before third. For this reason, I think of DCC as a sort of hybrid. It may boast a certain Old-School feel, but it also boasts of 3E Rules. Goodman Games expressly reached out to people within the OSR during it's development and listened to what they had to say along other groups of hobbyists. Not everything I and other commented on made it into the final rules but as far as I am concerned Goodman Games and the DCC RPG are at least honorary OSR if not more due to their support of classic edition reprints (TSR and Judges Guild). It not that you are wrong is that it needs to be remembers that OSR is about a particular group of hobbyists with shared interests, and hobbyists are people. As a consequence there can develop respect and kinship with those who do something different yet march along side and includes others in their plans. To me this is the category where Goodman Games falls and my example of what people with other system that are not D&D but want to include the OSR. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 3, 2019 17:53:20 GMT -6
I think of DCC as a sort of hybrid. It may boast a certain Old-School feel, but it also boasts of 3E Rules. Well, if memory serves me correctly it was sort of built on the 3E chassis (the d20 SRD) which prompted certain 3E stuff to be present. Also, it would feel a bit more old school if Joseph Goodman had chosen to use the base D&D stats instead of renaming them. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 3, 2019 17:56:25 GMT -6
a hobbyist being able to find what they find fun and play with enjoyable company. I tried, unsuccessfully and unofficially, but I was semi-serious, tried to get TARGA to adopt the tagline or mission of "Putting asses in chairs to play old school games". I still think that is the best approach - just play! I know TARGA started out with the best of intentions and you did a lot of good work trying to get up an running. It just given the corniness of the hobbyist involve then and now even something with loose organization was going to be hard going. It best to treat everybody like a clowder of cats. It nice when they get together but don't count on it, don't expect it and you won't get anywhere trying to force it. The only practical means of reinforcement through crreating enough open content crowd out material where the author can take their ball home when they get all pissy (for whatever reason). Using the easy of digital communication to let people know where to find the games they like to play. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 3, 2019 18:48:55 GMT -6
I was part of the 2008 resurgence and have been active (more or less) since. For me, "OSR" is a marketing label. I use it as a hashtag and a way of marking something. "Old school" is how I play and how I will describe my game to people. I find that like-minded folks are in places that identify as old school, OSR, or simply "D&D". To me, all of these are conversation starters, much like a logo on a t-shirt, a hanky in a back-pocket or a badge/patch on a jacket. And I love how this forum has a wonderful discussion without the angst. The reason I'm so against calling it a "marketing" term is two-fold (and I address this in my blog.) First, "marketing" explicitly infers a financial value, and while at the height of the movement the OSR certainly had such a value, today few to no publishers see much value in slapping an OSR logo on their product. Even Goodman Games, which markets DCC as an "old school" game, does not market it as an OSR game, rather calling it an "Appendix N" game. In addition, people who call it a marketing term tend to do so with some degree of derision and vitriol, as though marketing is a bad thing or somehow robs something of its "street cred." I think it's important and valuable to separate "marketing" from "shorthand." The latter is certainly valid--when someone refers to something as OSR, we all know it's usable with any edition of D&D before third. The former is tied specifically to a sales and profit perspective. Agree here. In particular, I think a lot of people call the OSR label "just a marketing term" implying that it's a completely empty tag that means nothing... people slap on the logo or a blurb identifying a product as OSR because they think it will make the product more popular. And there are even people I've seen trying to do that with their own non-TSR compatible products. But "OSR" is a marketing term in the same sense that genres like sword & sorcery or mystery are marketing terms. Genres aren't precise, but they are still useful as a signal to people looking for something like other products they've enjoyed... and when a product misuses that label in a particularly poor way, it gets mocked. Consider when Get Out was nominated for Best Musical or Comedy of 2017 at the Golden Globes. People thought that was a ridiculous category to include it under, although it turns out there were strategic reasons for that choice. But if the movie had been marketed as a comedy (or worse, musical,) there would have been huge outrage at the deception. |
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on Jan 3, 2019 18:52:18 GMT -6
Outraged at the deception! But not necessarily ripped off. Hmm...
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 4, 2019 0:35:40 GMT -6
Outraged at the deception! But not necessarily ripped off. Hmm... Well... it was a pretty good movie. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Jan 4, 2019 6:57:44 GMT -6
For this reason, I think of DCC as a sort of hybrid. It may boast a certain Old-School feel, but it also boasts of 3E Rules. Goodman Games expressly reached out to people within the OSR during it's development and listened to what they had to say along other groups of hobbyists. Not everything I and other commented on made it into the final rules but as far as I am concerned Goodman Games and the DCC RPG are at least honorary OSR if not more due to their support of classic edition reprints (TSR and Judges Guild). It not that you are wrong is that it needs to be remembers that OSR is about a particular group of hobbyists with shared interests, and hobbyists are people. As a consequence there can develop respect and kinship with those who do something different yet march along side and includes others in their plans. To me this is the category where Goodman Games falls and my example of what people with other system that are not D&D but want to include the OSR. Before the development of DCC, Goodman Games also reached out to a number of OSR publishers to try and buy their games. I know for a fact they reached out to Goblinoid about Labyrinth Lord, and they reached out to me regarding Spellcraft & Swordplay. Both of us turned them down because the offer they were making was very poor. I can't speak for OSRIC or S&W, but it wouldn't surprise me if they got similar offers. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 4, 2019 7:05:24 GMT -6
Goodman Games expressly reached out to people within the OSR during it's development and listened to what they had to say along other groups of hobbyists. Not everything I and other commented on made it into the final rules but as far as I am concerned Goodman Games and the DCC RPG are at least honorary OSR if not more due to their support of classic edition reprints (TSR and Judges Guild). It not that you are wrong is that it needs to be remembers that OSR is about a particular group of hobbyists with shared interests, and hobbyists are people. As a consequence there can develop respect and kinship with those who do something different yet march along side and includes others in their plans. To me this is the category where Goodman Games falls and my example of what people with other system that are not D&D but want to include the OSR. Before the development of DCC, Goodman Games also reached out to a number of OSR publishers to try and buy their games. I know for a fact they reached out to Goblinoid about Labyrinth Lord, and they reached out to me regarding Spellcraft & Swordplay. Both of us turned them down because the offer they were making was very poor. I can't speak for OSRIC or S&W, but it wouldn't surprise me if they got similar offers. I did not know that thanks for sharing the info. |
|
|
|
Post by Melan on Jan 4, 2019 8:49:35 GMT -6
Before the development of DCC, Goodman Games also reached out to a number of OSR publishers to try and buy their games. I know for a fact they reached out to Goblinoid about Labyrinth Lord, and they reached out to me regarding Spellcraft & Swordplay. Both of us turned them down because the offer they were making was very poor. I can't speak for OSRIC or S&W, but it wouldn't surprise me if they got similar offers. In the end, they hit on gold with developing their own game. They have a dedicated, wide fanbase, and the people I know from it love both the system and the community. They seem to treat their fans very well, have an active con presence, dedicated zines, and the rest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2019 9:41:27 GMT -6
ALL you punks git offa mah lawn.
|
|
|
|
Post by xerxez on Jan 4, 2019 10:19:30 GMT -6
I have been enjoying this forum for years even though I used the term OSR forever before realizing I not only didn’t really have a conception of the movement’s foundations...I probably still don’t.
My conception was that it was about playing any older forms of D&D either with old books or retro clones and specifically a less codified “rules” approach, an emphasis on player thinking rather than min/max philosophy, and a more traditional DM role instead of DM vs. rules lawyers.
It’s roots are with you guys who played OD&D and games contemporary to OD&D.
In my gaming territory, I cannot find people who want to run or play OD&D. Every time I pitch it they will prefer Swords and Wizardry, 1st Ed AD&D, or 5E. “More choices” they say. But I’m like “Yeah, and more hassle!”
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 4, 2019 10:44:24 GMT -6
I have been enjoying this forum for years even though I used the term OSR forever before realizing I not only didn’t really have a conception of the movement’s foundations...I probably still don’t. My conception was that it was about playing any older forms of D&D either with old books or retro clones and specifically a less codified “rules” approach, an emphasis on player thinking rather than min/max philosophy, and a more traditional DM role instead of DM vs. rules lawyers. Pretty sure everyone here would agree with that. In my gaming territory, I cannot find people who want to run or play OD&D. Every time I pitch it they will prefer Swords and Wizardry, 1st Ed AD&D, or 5E. “More choices” they say. But I’m like “Yeah, and more hassle!” I haven't tested this, but I'm thinking if you let players use whatever system they want to create characters, with the understanding that you are going to use other rules behind the scenes, you can run OD&D and they can get their "more choices". Just ignore the mechanics and interpret the characters they come up with. |
|
skars
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 407
|
Post by skars on Jan 4, 2019 12:32:40 GMT -6
For this reason, I think of DCC as a sort of hybrid. It may boast a certain Old-School feel, but it also boasts of 3E Rules. Goodman Games expressly reached out to people within the OSR during it's development and listened to what they had to say along other groups of hobbyists. Not everything I and other commented on made it into the final rules but as far as I am concerned Goodman Games and the DCC RPG are at least honorary OSR if not more due to their support of classic edition reprints (TSR and Judges Guild). It not that you are wrong is that it needs to be remembers that OSR is about a particular group of hobbyists with shared interests, and hobbyists are people. As a consequence there can develop respect and kinship with those who do something different yet march along side and includes others in their plans. To me this is the category where Goodman Games falls and my example of what people with other system that are not D&D but want to include the OSR. Agreed, and if d20 3rd Ed srd rules are the mark on DCC to consider it a hybrid the same can be said for basic fantasy. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Jan 4, 2019 15:21:15 GMT -6
I have been enjoying this forum for years even though I used the term OSR forever before realizing I not only didn’t really have a conception of the movement’s foundations...I probably still don’t. Do you play, promote, or publish for a classic edition of D&D or a set of rule similar to a classic edition of D&D? If yes then you are in the club. You are doing it right. Irregardless of what kind of setting or play style you like. Thanks to all the open content it there is straightforward path to share or even sell one's material. And thanks to digital technology an individual can do a lot of projects within the time they have for their hobby. Anything beyond the above is a detail resulting from specific interests and likes. In my experience those details vary. There are groups within the OSR, like this one, who share similar interests. |
|
|
|
Post by rossik on Jan 4, 2019 16:47:37 GMT -6
IMO, one thing is whats OSR was, and another is what it is now.
same as "RPG". back in the days, you just had to say "i play rpg" and everyone that know what it was assumed what you were talking about. Now, you have to say "tabletop rpg" or something like that.
OSR, by what it became, is not about D&D in any edition (again, IMO). Its a way to create products, with weird stuff, random tables, mostly short material... but then, that too its a matter of time. Maybe in a couple of years it will be another thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2019 19:14:29 GMT -6
Huh. I've never had problems filling my OD&D games, in 47 years.
|
|
