What is OSR?

[premmy]

I THINK the oldest known use of the phrase "old school renaissance" (in an RPG context) comes from a 2005 post on Dragonsfoot in this thread, and it precedes both the "rules" and "revival" versions.

[cadriel]

Jul 7, 2020 14:27:51 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Castles and Crusades is quintessentially OSR (if you are willing to have 1st edition in that continuum which I am). DCC is OSR too, though I'd say further out to the edge.

This is a historical question. Castles & Crusades predates the OSR as a label, and not accidentally. What we can identify as the OSR started as a reaction against C&C - a number of people who didn't care for where Troll Lord Games took the system went off and made OSRIC, and at roughly the same time Chris Gonnerman made Basic Fantasy. That's the ground where most of what we can identify as the OSR came together. A lot of people who came into the OSR early did so after trying C&C and moving on to earlier editions and retro-clones (myself included - I ran C&C before OD&D or Labyrinth Lord). Since then, C&C has had its own ecosystem, and other than Castle Zagyg the products from one haven't really made an impact on the other. Most importantly, C&C has never claimed to be part of the OSR.

Dungeon Crawl Classics, on the other hand, just isn't a clone. It has the 3e system at its core but it's tricked out and really weird. I don't think of it as OSR because you can't really mix and match between DCC and OSR materials, whereas compatibility has been a pretty good sign of OSR games. And again, DCC doesn't claim to be OSR, which I think is important.

5th edition is remarkable that modern day WoTC would make something so clearly influenced by OSR. It isn't hard to run a pretty OSR flavored game with it. Note, I'm not saying 5e is OSR, it is its own thing, a sort of mixed bag of a bunch of stuff.

I just ran a 5e campaign that used mostly 2e materials so I can't argue that much with that. On the other hand I think it makes sense, the OSR hit demographics that WotC wanted to sell to and had original ideas about gaming that actually stand up to the test of running games. It's nice that they do things like put tons of charts in the books, though.

[robertsconley]

Jul 8, 2020 13:14:49 GMT -6 cadriel said:

C&C has had its own ecosystem, and other than Castle Zagyg the products from one haven't really made an impact on the other.

The problem is the open content of Castles & Crusades makes it a dead end. What C&C is rises and falls on the efforts of Troll Lords Games alone. In contrast there are a lot of people building off of or adapting Swords & Wizardry, including myself, because it core rules are 100% open content.

OSRIC is only partially open. Even though it along with Basic Fantasy were the trailblazers, it was the clones that came afterward that had a wider impact.

But since it pretty straight forward for anybody to start with the d20 SRD and make their own clone or near clone the result is that not even Swords & Wizardry or other open clones dominate the OSR landscape. Instead it is a mix.

Jul 8, 2020 13:14:49 GMT -6 cadriel said:

Dungeon Crawl Classics, on the other hand, just isn't a clone. It has the 3e system at its core but it's tricked out and really weird. I don't think of it as OSR because you can't really mix and match between DCC and OSR materials, whereas compatibility has been a pretty good sign of OSR games. And again, DCC doesn't claim to be OSR, which I think is important.

I view DCC RPG as an honorary member of the OSR. Because they went out their way to involve and solicit feedback from people in the OSR during its development. And since it release they been open to 3PP contributions.

Jul 8, 2020 13:14:49 GMT -6 cadriel said:

On the other hand I think it makes sense, the OSR hit demographics that WotC wanted to sell to and had original ideas about gaming that actually stand up to the test of running games. It's nice that they do things like put tons of charts in the books, though.

OSR's major contribution to the development of 5e is proving out in numerous actual play accounts that less can be more. That various OSR RPGs served as example of how rulebooks supporting minimal mechanics would look like.

5e didn't dial it all the way back because many hobbyists like stuff to fiddle with in the mechanics. But it seems they did a good job of designing a system that does well in catering to people with different tastes in mechanical complexity.

[tdenmark]

Jul 8, 2020 13:14:49 GMT -6 cadriel said:

This is a historical question. Castles & Crusades predates the OSR as a label, and not accidentally. What we can identify as the OSR started as a reaction against C&C - a number of people who didn't care for where Troll Lord Games took the system went off and made OSRIC, and at roughly the same time Chris Gonnerman made Basic Fantasy. That's the ground where most of what we can identify as the OSR came together. A lot of people who came into the OSR early did so after trying C&C and moving on to earlier editions and retro-clones (myself included - I ran C&C before OD&D or Labyrinth Lord). Since then, C&C has had its own ecosystem, and other than Castle Zagyg the products from one haven't really made an impact on the other. Most importantly, C&C has never claimed to be part of the OSR.

A classic car can predate the term "classic car" and still be a classic car.

Regardless of what C&C claims to be, or that some were turned off by it and went and did their own thing. C&C books taste very OSR.

I don't play C&C, but I use the heck out of some of their supplements in my own OSR games. For example their Codex Nordica and Codex Germania books are great supplements for a Viking Norse Mythology flavored campaign. The stats need very little fiddling to work with Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, etc.

You're probably right about DCC. It is a very gonzo swords & sorcery take on 3e. Reminds me of Hackmaster or even Arduin, but way better. Like someone's out of control homebrew campaign that somehow got professionally published.

[tdenmark]

Jul 8, 2020 8:25:10 GMT -6 premmy said:

I THINK the oldest known use of the phrase "old school renaissance" (in an RPG context) comes from a 2005 post on Dragonsfoot in this thread, and it precedes both the "rules" and "revival" versions.

Is this true? Is it the earliest? By "Guest", so we may never know the identity of who coined the phrase.

[doublejig2]

Yep, Guest has done a lot of impressive things. Kind of like Staff as a college professor teaching courses in all departments.

[premmy]

Jul 8, 2020 15:07:00 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Jul 8, 2020 8:25:10 GMT -6 premmy said:

I THINK the oldest known use of the phrase "old school renaissance" (in an RPG context) comes from a 2005 post on Dragonsfoot in this thread, and it precedes both the "rules" and "revival" versions.

Is this true? Is it the earliest? By "Guest", so we may never know the identity of who coined the phrase.

That particular post was found a few years ago, unsurprisingly during an online conversation about the origins of the phrase. As far as I know, it's quite possibly true.

[Zenopus]

Here is T. Foster (foster1941) using the term 'old school revival' (in quotes) in Aug 2004 on DF:

True that's the position of the current regime, but the nice thing about WOTC being owned by an impersonal megacorporation is that the current regime won't be in power forever. If the 'old-school revival' continues to pick up steam and the current game continues to flounder (if, say, Eberron flops and/or the collectible minis game dries up) sooner or later some bean-counter at Hasbro who doesn't have an emotional attachment to the current edition is going to realize that there's a demand (i.e. money to be made) for 'collector's editions' of the classic games (OD&D, AD&D, B/X D&D) and we'll see them back on the shelves in some form or another. And yes, there is some precedent for this -- a couple years ago Hasbro released 'nostalgia editions' of several of their perennial Parker Brothers and Milton Bradley games, replica editions of the 50s-60s versions of Monopoly, Risk, Clue, etc. including the old artwork and even the old rules.

www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=104407#p104407

While "Old School Renaissance" has become the preferred term (as evidence by the poll starting this thread, if nothing else), "Old School Revival" has always been a valid alternative. In fact, the Wiki page for OSR is actually titled "Old School Revival". IMO, you can't study the evolution of the term "OSR" solely by use of the particular phrase "Old School Renaissance".

[cross-posted on DF in the thread that was bumped]

[Deleted]

Here's a hypothetical for you guys - if instead of branching off in 1000 unique directions, the OSR had rallied behind a single system (Be it OSRIC, Swords & Wixardry, Basic Fantasy, whichever) and developed tons of content for that specifically, do you think the OSR would be bigger than it is today, a smaller niche that inspires fewer people, or about the same but different?

The reason I ask is that over the past week I've seen a handful of questions posited at the subreddit under the question of whether a Labyrinth Lord module can be ran with Lamentations characters, or whether monsters from Swords & Wizardry can be used with Knave, etc. I remember in the early OSR, one of the explicit goals of the community was to promote a wealth of new material written in an old school voice that was broadly inter-compatible. It doesn't seem like that message is carrying through to 2020. The answer to both the questions above is "yes" of course. That material is broadly inter-compatible. But for some reason people aren't getting that message. I wonder if it wouldn't be more obvious if, in an alt-2020, all those hundreds of modules and tool kits available weren't under a single brand or umbrella. (I know OSR is supposed to cover it all but you know what I mean. People interpret system differently from genre for some reason.)

[rredmond]

Personally I would have preferred that, and I agree that they are all really (with minor modifcations) compatible. But that's because I've mainly played AD&D 1E and so OSRIC fits me like a glove. I think the thing with "OSR" is flavor. While I enjoy OSRIC and LL and BFRPG (and somewhat S&W and DCC) and, in general, the flavor of the modules put out for those systems. I know that I would not likely run a LotFP module, I've read them, I enjoy the different creativity in them, but not really the modules themselves. And not because they are wrongbadfun but because they aren't really for me. I get it too, because when you think about it, even back in the (aka "my") day, there was 1e, OD&D, BECMI, etc. And the different companies that put out compatible modules with their own spin and flavor to them (and sometimes even differentish systems) other than TSR - Judges Guild, Role Aids, Mayfair Games, etc.

I agree that I would have liked one big-tent umbrella bringing it all together, but I get the different spins and flavors on the game. Fun times.

[jeffb]

I don't think an OSR that rallied under a single system would have been nearly as successful, if at all. I don't think it would have ever happened.

Right away we saw several systems- and people doing their thing, their way. THAT is the spirit of the OSR. Providing a publishing tool was already an "issue"- One guy wanted to do AD&D, then a guy from that project went on to do OD&D (in a few flavors!- Including one extremely popular version by our very own Fin), another did Moldvay D&D but with a couple 3E-isms, then came the "That's not close enough to the actual rules" crowd or "That's too sanitized" or "I want to use the rules for a specific setting/genre/playstyle" and we got a second wave. And now we have a million different games, some markedly different, some are just a personal houseruled D&D game.


At this point the number of games/clones is ludicrous, IMO but especially with the way things are going in the greater RPG community these days, I Thank God for Ryan Dancey every single day- that he opened up the game so we can all choose to have fun and buy products from any number of writers, or even write ourselves. That we don't need to be part of the bigger community and all it's issues. He did us a massive service. Even for those not using the license- he showed us it was possible, without the worry.

As for C&C- I have a hard time categorizing it as OSR too. It is essentially AD&D through the lens of the 3.0 SRD, and occupies a unique place. The Trolls say the same too- they don't consider themselves OSR. I'd say it appeals to people who love/d the feel and spirit of AD&D play, but didn't care for the rule mechanics.

[Deleted]

Yeah. I own the C&C core books and various pdfs and I was excited to get into playing or running it at one point in time, but over the past few years after taking a deep dive into systems that actually more closely emulate 0e, B/X and AD&D assumptions I'm not as personally into it as I used to be. I might be convinced to play in a one shot at a convention or something if that specific opportunity opened itself up but it's not "my" flavor of D&D. I think that's why, ultimately, in answer to my own hypothetical, I'd say I'm relieved that it went off in 1,000 gonzo DIY directions. In this respect it kind of ignores the 45+
years of codified D&D that followed that early hectic period after OD&D came out when kids all over the English speaking world were frantically adopting, hacking and building on the core concept...or "ample framework" of OD&D.

This particular brand of OSR we're seeing in 2020 is almost as if there were hundreds of Arduin Grimoires or Warlocks coming out by people who found something that inspired them in D&D, but maybe not the mechanics or setting. And that's okay, too. I believe that, at least when the booklets first came out, there was this naive and not at all capitalistic hope that this was the future of these types of campaigns. That every individual group of players would take the concept and make it our own. TSR may have back pedaled pretty hard, pretty fast on that but it was an idea they put out themselves. An invitation to a party that ended too soon, so people decided to throw another one a few decades later.

[rredmond]

Note (and I feel like I make this note 2 or 3 times a year) I must play C&C some time! But just seconding jeffb's answer, I'm glad people did what they love, but I think we're good now! But whatever spurs folks to make more modules that I can use for 1e/OSRIC, is fine by me.

[Deleted]

Jul 9, 2020 9:44:20 GMT -6 rredmond said:

Note (and I feel like I make this note 2 or 3 times a year) I must play C&C some time! But just seconding jeffb's answer, I'm glad people did what they love, but I think we're good now! But whatever spurs folks to make more modules that I can use for 1e/OSRIC, is fine by me.

What's your favorite 1e compatible module from recent years? I see a lot of stuff that's modeled more after a B/X paradigm and that's usable enough, but I very rarely see any adventures being made for 1e, although I've seen a few. 

I'm personally a huge fan of Anomalous Subsurface Environment because it's got that gonzo sci-fantasy mish mash you often see in classic modules like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and that kind of thing always tickled my fancy. 

[jeffb]

Please don't misunderstand- I am a HUGE fan of C&C and The Trolls (though I've had my personal hang-ups about some things they do/don't do). Steve, Davis, et all are good people. That Gary felt the OK to work with them in his last days, give C&C the thumbs up, etc- speaks volumes (for me anyway).

I have a massive stack of C&C books and modules, and frankly I find it the most tweakable system out there among the OSR-dom. I've taken many things from newer systems (Feats, 13th Age Backgrounds, Icon Rolls and Monster Specials) reworked the math via charts and tables, whatever- plugged it all in and the d**n thing works, and works well. It can be really gritty or super heroic just by some number tweaking- AND you can use any OSR/TSR products as well as 3.0 and convert on the fly with ease.

I find C&C a paint set just as much as OD&D- it's just C&C decided to use a more modern dice mechanic tied to it's 3.0 SRD roots. You can run it out of the box as is, but it's made for you to hack it to what YOU want. On top of that, they have alot of interesting adventures and adventure tools to use with any D&D-esque game.

[rredmond]

ASE is great, but that's LL
My favorite OSRIC (so not TSR or Judges Guild 1e) modules are Jim Kramer's (RIP my friend) Arachnophobia! (even though it's spider-oid creatures, and not xenomorphs, it still has a very Alien/s feel to it), he also has a great 1st level module, "Yrchyn, the Tyrant" which is a homage of sorts to Tucker's Kobolds - anything he did (his company was Usherwood Adventures or Usherwood Publishing) is pretty good. His whole world, with different races and classes, is free on his website. I also really enjoy running the Advanced Adventure module, The Pod Caverns of the Sinister Shroom, it's really fun, and really good, and has that 2nd - 4th level spot that it fits well. Those are what I am DMing, or have recently DMed, I'm playing in a game with @rafael of Arden Vul, DMed by the cartographer himself, that so far has been tons of fun, but it's a mega-megadungeon and will take a while to get through - it's also way more expensive than the other modules I mentioned so this social worker won't be able to afford it, but playing in it I can tell it's an amazing labor of love.

[rredmond]

Just to add www.usherwoodadventures.com/products.html are all 1e/OSRIC compatible, as are all of XRP's Advanced Adventure line www.xrpshop.citymax.com/page/page/2561954.htm
Heh, I forgot XRP also publishes Arden Vul. But there are a ton of great modules in the Advanced Adventure line, stuff I have read by Keith Sloan (but haven't run yet) was fantastic! But haven't really read a bad one yet.
Good luck and have fun!
--Ron--

[robertsconley]

Jul 8, 2020 15:07:00 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Jul 8, 2020 8:25:10 GMT -6 premmy said:

I THINK the oldest known use of the phrase "old school renaissance" (in an RPG context) comes from a 2005 post on Dragonsfoot in this thread, and it precedes both the "rules" and "revival" versions.

Is this true? Is it the earliest? By "Guest", so we may never know the identity of who coined the phrase.

I researched this extensively. It remains the earliest mention that can be found.

batintheattic.blogspot.com/2009/08/where-hell-old-school-renaissance-come.html

[robertsconley]

Jul 9, 2020 6:23:14 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Here's a hypothetical for you guys - if instead of branching off in 1000 unique directions, the OSR had rallied behind a single system (Be it OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry, Basic Fantasy, whichever) and developed tons of content for that specifically, do you think the OSR would be bigger than it is today, a smaller niche that inspires fewer people, or about the same but different?

Too many individuals groups in the early (and current) OSR don't get along. Not just for petty or personal reasons but deep differences over creative approaches. Given that the enabling "hack" is based on open content there is a near zero chance that any alternative history would be plausible. The use of open content, digital technology, print on demand, and the popularity of classic editions made it near certain that multiple groups and individuals would make a go at it. Each with their own creative views.

Sorry about being a downer on the plausibility of your thought experiment. But having experienced it first hand, I can't stress enough over how many marched to the tune of their own drummer including myself.

There was a brief period of "Look at what we can do now" enthusiasm however when works like Carcosa started coming out it become obvious that everybody wanted different things out of the classic editions.

[talysman]

Jul 9, 2020 6:23:14 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Here's a hypothetical for you guys - if instead of branching off in 1000 unique directions, the OSR had rallied behind a single system (Be it OSRIC, Swords & Wixardry, Basic Fantasy, whichever) and developed tons of content for that specifically, do you think the OSR would be bigger than it is today, a smaller niche that inspires fewer people, or about the same but different?

Smaller, obviously. Because if everyone "in the OSR" could unite around a single system, they would have. But they didn't. Which means that if no competing OSR systems had developed, everyone who isn't playing Swords & Wizardry, Basic Fantasy, or whatever now would be playing some other non-OSR game that was closest to their desires.

The hypothetical I'm more interested in is: What if instead of a focus on multiple systems, the focus had been on modding systems? In other words, system creators, instead of writing a full system to support their core rule changes, had used the SRD to copy just terminology and then built their divergent systems on top of that terminology?

[tetramorph]

talysman, I like that.

I was just thinking the other day: what if instead of the failed "basic/advanced" distinction that never worked out, the situation had become something like:

Core
Expansion kits

I imagine the "core" to be even MORE "simple" than the original rules, a skeleton, armature, structure alone. Really just getting down to the brass-tacks of how the logic of the rules are put together. Things like: HD to lvl ratio, XP to level, gold for XP, target-20 for attacks and saves, ability scores, AC, bean counting, basic play rules for scales, moves and turns in wilderness and underworld, basic expectations for setting up the campaign with very basic sets of generation tools, maybe a few spell, monster and treasure descriptors with suggestions and generators for the rest.

Then the expansions do what they say. They interpret the core and take it in certain directions for different kinds of fantasy settings and different tastes along the spectrum of rules light to heavy.

Then, various POD combos of a given set of expansion kits integrated into the core rules would allow those who like a particular combo / flavor to have it all under one cover. Like a big database / spreadsheet! You could hit the radio buttons on the web site and the computer would compile your perfect rule-book! Crazy!

Now that (huge!) project is one that I would LOVE to be a part of!

[Falconer]

My definition is simple. If I but a module branded “OSR,” I expect it to be compatible with xD&D circa 1975-1983.

[tetramorph]

Jul 10, 2020 10:12:35 GMT -6 Falconer said:

My definition is simple. If I but a module branded “OSR,” I expect it to be compatible with xD&D circa 1975-1983.

I like it. However, why not 1974? Do you always want the supplements? For example, what about S&W Whitebox, etc? Again, for example, if I were to publish a module, it would probably be LBB only, no thieves, etc. Okay, or no for you?

[tdenmark]

Jul 10, 2020 10:19:09 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

if I were to publish a module, it would probably be LBB only, no thieves, etc. Okay, or no for you?

Yeah, screw Thieves. They messed everything up and broke D&D forever.

Clerics can pretty much go too. Casters and Non-Casters (Mages and Fighters) covers everything. Clerics are just casters with a devotion to a cult.

[tdenmark]

Jul 10, 2020 10:12:35 GMT -6 Falconer said:

My definition is simple. If I but a module branded “OSR,” I expect it to be compatible with xD&D circa 1975-1983.

1974.

Everything else is just fan fiction.

[Zenopus]

Jul 10, 2020 11:14:12 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Jul 10, 2020 10:19:09 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

if I were to publish a module, it would probably be LBB only, no thieves, etc. Okay, or no for you?

Yeah, screw Thieves. They messed everything up and broke D&D forever.

Clerics can pretty much go too. Casters and Non-Casters (Mages and Fighters) covers everything. Clerics are just casters with a devotion to a cult.

Magic is more mysterious & frightening if left to the evil sorcerers, so ditch Magic-Users as PCs too! If you want to play a "wizard", your Fighter can find a magic item. 😎

[tdenmark]

Jul 10, 2020 13:14:59 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Magic is more mysterious & frightening if left to the evil sorcerers, so ditch Magic-Users as PCs too! If you want to play a "wizard", your Fighter can find a magic item. 😎

Yeah. I love Conan too.

[Vile Traveller]

Jul 9, 2020 6:23:14 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Here's a hypothetical for you guys - if instead of branching off in 1000 unique directions, the OSR had rallied behind a single system (Be it OSRIC, Swords & Wixardry, Basic Fantasy, whichever) and developed tons of content for that specifically, do you think the OSR would be bigger than it is today, a smaller niche that inspires fewer people, or about the same but different?

Of course I am of the view that more is better! The beauty of the OSR is that everyone can find exactly what they want - or, by now, probably 3 or 4 examples of exactly what they want. Can you imagine what a dull place the "normal" RPG hobby would be if there were only one game? Sure, that one game might get a few more players because some people will play things simply because there is no alternative, but most would simply not play at all. Competition is what makes things better, never monopoly.

[tombowings]

Jul 10, 2020 9:54:17 GMT -6 talysman said:

Jul 9, 2020 6:23:14 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Here's a hypothetical for you guys - if instead of branching off in 1000 unique directions, the OSR had rallied behind a single system (Be it OSRIC, Swords & Wixardry, Basic Fantasy, whichever) and developed tons of content for that specifically, do you think the OSR would be bigger than it is today, a smaller niche that inspires fewer people, or about the same but different?

Smaller, obviously. Because if everyone "in the OSR" could unite around a single system, they would have. But they didn't. Which means that if no competing OSR systems had developed, everyone who isn't playing Swords & Wizardry, Basic Fantasy, or whatever now would be playing some other non-OSR game that was closest to their desires.

The hypothetical I'm more interested in is: What if instead of a focus on multiple systems, the focus had been on modding systems? In other words, system creators, instead of writing a full system to support their core rule changes, had used the SRD to copy just terminology and then built their divergent systems on top of that terminology?

I think that's a workable project, and one I would be interested in continuing to. A large database with different rules options based around OSR fundamentals.

[Falconer]

Jul 10, 2020 10:19:09 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

I like it. However, why not 1974? Do you always want the supplements? For example, what about S&W Whitebox, etc? Again, for example, if I were to publish a module, it would probably be LBB only, no thieves, etc. Okay, or no for you?

Of course it would be fine. I just think of 1975-1983 as the “mainstream” years, you know, Greyhawk and B/X and AD&D core, nothing too far afield like the Master Set or Unearthed Arcana. 2e players could use it, but it wouldn’t include any particular 2e-isms.

So you might state “White Box” on the cover, but, I don’t think it would really be a big deal if you didn’t.