How much Investment do you have in today's OSR scene?

[tetramorph]

Okay, thanks, jeffb.

One more question: what do you mean by, “OSR is for kids.”

Is that even less than no real investment?

[Deleted]

Kids are the future, for better or worse, and we were all kids once. Some of them have some strange ideas about old school, though. I've covered this in other threads. I try to stay in some of the groups. Make sure misinformation doesn't go uncontested. Doesn't always make me popular, though

[Deleted]

I voted no real investment, but I'm sure that's debatable.

Part of the problem is that if you ask 9 gamers what the OSR is, you'll get 10 opinions.

I like older versions of D&D, retroclones, and innovative games that share the same spirit. But I don't really feel connected to the OSR.

For me, the OSR mostly seems like people on the Internet who are trying to sell me things. I'm an occasional buyer too. A lot of what is on offer under the banner of the OSR, however, does not really seem to be made by people who understand what makes older versions of D&D work or who want something from games other than what I want. Nothing wrong with the latter; we're just interested in different things.

[arkansan]

It seems to me that the OSR has sort of veered off in an odd direction. The majority of works I see now labeled as OSR are more just rules lite indie/arthouse stuff with some old school inspiration. There's nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't seem to have all that much relation to the scene as it was when I found it back around 08 or 09. More and more I see things promoted on the OSR sub-reddit and find myself wondering exactly how it's OSR. When I found the OSR it was about going back to the beginning as a method of exploring lost or over looked play styles, sussing out sources of influence, taking a look at the meanings and reasons behind various things etc. Then there was a phase that seemed to be based on building on top of those things, which I found really cool as well. However all that seems to have fallen out of the mainstream of the "OSR" and now it's about unique visual aesthetics that are either "oohh super dark" or "calarts Adventure Time style" with lite rules and a vague D&D inspiration.

[Deleted]

Exactly one of my main hangups. They're co-opting the OSR label and applying it willy nilly to any indie/art house style rpg materials that come out. They know what they're doing. These are cynical people out to make a quick buck. They did their homework and figured out the OSR was a huge slice of the rpg scene. Probably saw how successful the Kickstarter for OSE was.

[tetramorph]

I have no interest in trying to make a game that is already about a Sword & Sorcery world even darker and edgier.

I also do not believe that a good module has to be "art." And even if it achieves art, I do not believe that true art is angsty.

And that seems to be the assumption of a lot of stuff called "OSR" these days.

[Finarvyn]

Jun 18, 2021 20:48:10 GMT -6 @sonofbear said:

Jun 18, 2021 19:43:35 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

I would say AD&D (1st edition).

Thank you!

To say a bit more about C&C (I was a playtester back in the day), the Troll Lords folks had this idea of taking the 3E SRD and trying to make something sort of AD&D-like with it. Castles & Crusades was one of the first games to do this, and I think overall they did a great job. Troll Lord Games had at one point linked up with Gary Gygax with the intent of producing Castle Zygag, which was supposed to be as close to the original campaign's castle as Gary could make legally. Gary supposedly played a lot of C&C with his local group, in addition to his OD&D games. With Gary's passing my understanding is that the estate pulled the plug on the project, which had already consisted of an upper level and several smaller sections of the town at the entrance to the dungeon, so that the anticipated dozen or so level-products became vaporware. I think that Gary's association with TLG and his endorsement of the CZ project is much of what causes C&C to be associated with the rest of Gary's RPGs.

[dicebro]

I love old rpg games and old war games, especially fantasy. I try to play them whenever possible. I don’t like 3.0 +. So I’m all in.

[geoffrey]

Jun 19, 2021 15:13:02 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Troll Lord Games had at one point linked up with Gary Gygax with the intent of producing Castle Zagyg, which was supposed to be as close to the original campaign's castle as Gary could make legally. Gary supposedly played a lot of C&C with his local group, in addition to his OD&D games.

1. I think it very sad that the Troll Lords were unable to finish publishing Gary's dungeons of Castle Greyhawk using the Castles & Crusades rules. If the entire thing had ended up being published, I think that the OSR would look quite a bit different today. (It would skew far more heavily towards C&C.)

2. Did Gary really play a lot of C&C with his local group? I'd be glad to hear it! Please let me know more. My previous impression was that in his last nine years of life, Gary played Lejendary Adventure (when he got his way) or OD&D (when he didn't get his way).

[Deleted]

The Chenault brothers usually speak of having to translate the material Gary submitted from AD&D language to fit d20 so I doubt he played much C&C. Like you said, he was very enthusiastic about LA at the end. He did run OD&D sometimes, apparently.

[geoffrey]

I voted "A fair amount of investment". Here's why:

1. I have 13 published A/D&D books since 2008, which comes to an average of 1 per year for the last 13 years.

2. I have published 8 A/D&D modules by other authors on drivethrurpg.

3. I joined these boards a mere 4 months after Fin started them. By my quick count, only 16 active members joined before me.

4. I have posted 3,217 times here on these boards. Only Fin and waysoftheearth have posted more.

5. I was part of dragonsfoot before its new incarnation in May 2002, and I joined its new incarnation on May 21, 2002. Only 4 active members joined before me.

6. I have posted 7,321 times on dragonsfoot. By my count, only 53 dragonsfooters have posted more.

That's a LOT of time I have invested, and almost all of it well-spent. I consider it all OSR.* Thanks to all of my fellow D&Ders who have taken the time to share, whether on message boards and/or in books. You have given me countless hours of joy.


*What I would consider old-school but not OSR: Some guys who have been playing A/D&D since the 1970s or early 80s who basically have no clue that new books for their favorite game are being published and who have never heard of all the message boards, blogs, etc. They just have kept on playing the same good ol' game for all these decades. They quite possibly think that they are the only ones!

[waysoftheearth]

Great discussion!

It seems to me there is an apparent schism between the original conception of OSR (about reviving old gaming rules), and the current direction of the OSR (selling indie product--even without any genuine connection to old gaming rules).

If this poll had been about the former, then I would have been "all in" for all the reasons geoffrey lists. However, I assumed (more-or-less correctly, I think?) this poll is about the latter, and therefore I voted no investment.


Given the indie crowd have pretty much subsumed OSR, we could use a counter- or original-OSR label to wrap around the "original meaning" which would reduce confusion and, judging by comments above, be more relevant to most folks on these boards.

(No crudeness beginning with F and ending with R, please).

[Deleted]

Jun 19, 2021 17:17:48 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Great discussion!

It seems to me there is an apparent schism between the original conception of OSR (about reviving old gaming rules), and the current direction of the OSR (selling indie product--even without any genuine connection to old gaming rules).

If this poll had been about the former, then I would have been "all in" for all the reasons geoffrey lists. However, I assumed (more-or-less correctly, I think?) this poll is about the latter, and therefore I voted no investment.


Given the indie crowd have pretty much subsumed OSR, we could use a counter- or original-OSR label to wrap around the "original meaning" which would reduce confusion and, judging by comments above, be more relevant to most folks on these boards.

(No crudeness beginning with F and ending with R, please).

A counter-question: Do we really? This forum is pretty active. Dragonsfoot is pretty active. There are active Reddit and (I'm told) Facebook groups for all the TSR-era games and old school RPGs in general. It seems to me that plenty of people are still enjoying these games, or discovering them for the first time, with or without a label attached. 

[waysoftheearth]

I agree. The point of an alternate label would be: not having to explain "which OSR?" every time OSR is mentioned.

[waysoftheearth]

Jun 19, 2021 10:07:33 GMT -6 acodispo said:

A possibly-somewhat-related question: How do people here feel about the Wikipedia entry for OSR?

Wikipedia: Old School Revival

Which says among other things:

The Old School Revival, Old School Renaissance, or simply OSR, is a movement among players of tabletop role-playing games (especially Dungeons & Dragons) that draws inspiration from the earliest days of tabletop RPGs in the 1970s.

Feels to me like this reflects something near the "original intent", but also that it's now out of touch with how OSR is really being used/applied these days. I wonder who maintains it?

[jeffb]

Jun 19, 2021 17:17:48 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Great discussion!


If this poll had been about the former, then I would have been "all in" for all the reasons geoffrey lists. However, I assumed (more-or-less correctly, I think?) this poll is about the latter, and therefore I voted no investment.

Exactly.

I'd like to add the following bit since some people seem to be really confused between "original" and "OSR" or reading way too much into this whole thing.


1) I know everybody wants to harp on this, but I'm in no way going to get into a "what is OSR playstyle" here because, I know well enough that what some people call "modern indy storyteller games" were plenty prevalent in the 1970s. Sorry folks, it's nothing new, whether you like it or not. If that indy style stuff is being published for OSE or Worlds without Number or WhiteStar, it's still OSR.

2)* If you are using LL, or BFRPG, pulling some bits from LotFP, and running games in CHa'Alt or Yoon Suin or whatever, I'd say you are invested in the OSR.

3)* If you are playing OD&D using an OCE with some lifts from the Arduin Grimoire, and doing your own homebrew stuff running in Greyhawk, then I'd say you are not terribly invested in the OSR.

4) If you are publishing materials whether print, PDF, or stuff on your website for clones directly or targeting the OSR market in a secondary fashion (e.g Geoffrey's AD&D& modules) , I'd say you are pretty invested.

5) I don't consider this board OSR- It is OD&D discussion with a side of OSR product discussion areas and discussion by association. Of course the board owner knows his own intentions, but I don't see any clones up top on the banner or referenced in the name. I know I didn't come to this place because it was focused on S&W or LL, or OSRIC, or BFRPG. I came here because it's about OD&D. I would consider the LL boards, BFRPG boards, S&W boards, or the specific Simulacrum areas of Dragonsfoot as OSR discussion forums Of course, DF was originally an AD&D 1E forum- there used to be as many flame wars regarding 2E as there was 3E- I was also there way before the 2002 board re-do.

Maybe that helps, maybe that confuses people more, IDK. I chose the term "investment" because that is what was used in the original thread.


* and if you are mixing and matching but not using exclusively OSR product, or exclusively Original product, I'd think you get the gist of where to vote.

[aramis]

I don't even understand the OSR movement. They claim to be resurrecting late 70's and early 80's styles... but run nothing looking like what I experienced and/or heard of from people I knew at the time. Likewise, the biggest proponents seem to ignore their own advice, avoiding the very rules they made efforts to change..

It has, largely, fractured into a whole bunch of subcommunities.

It's generated a few strong communities: Castles & Crusades, Dungeon Crawl Classics, Hackmaster... but those communities reject the OSR ideals of yesteryear and embrace games that aren't the old ones with some fixes, but new designs capable of using OSR game stats..

The oldest game I've run in the last couple years was Dragon Warriors, and I used one of the official adventures. (The edition James Wallis published.) Not a great experience. Compared to what I was playing in the 1984 timeframe, it sucked badly.. Some good concepts, and a playable system, but the adventures are way harder than I was expecting. Compared to newer games? not much worse than against MSH/AMSH, Palladium, AD&D 1E, BX/BEC...

I love trying games, new and old...

[Greyharp]

My short answer is: None.

My long answer is the OSR scene today is a very different beastie from the original and while I have no investment in the current incarnation, I do still feel strongly connected to the original OSR. So much so that I have to admit to finding quite insulting the use of the phrase I see popping up fairly regularly lately: “The so called "OSR" movement”. I’m not suggesting this is intended to be personally insulting to anyone, but the phrase “so called” seems to infer that there was never such a thing as the Old School Revival (or whatever R-word people prefer), either that or those of us involved in the scene were delusional to use the term.

The fact is in the 2000s there was such an online scene, many of us participated in it, many of us like the phrase OSR to describe it, and many of us identified with the label. I get the impression that many involved in the current scene are either unaware of the origins of the OSR or under some big misapprehensions as to its nature. I’ve read some histories of the OSR in the last couple of years that bear little or no resemblance to what actually was happening back then.

I think some people are simply unaware that there was a period in the early 2000s where the TSR versions of D&D, Old School D&D, were not only out of print but that attempts by third parties to publish Old School D&D materials had been shut down by a litigious TSR and later WotC. Perhaps these people weren’t active in the online scene at the time and so can’t comprehend what it was like. The internet was still fairly new back then and there was great wariness amongst fans of upsetting the company. There was also Old School D&D fans who didn’t take to the new versions and were greatly disappointed the old versions were unsupported, out of print and nothing new was being published.

Then along came the OGL and SRD. The waters were tested, tentatively at first. Old School-like products were produced under the OGL. Lawyers didn’t shut people down. Then that wonderful fusion of elements happened, the combination of the Old School online scene in the form of the forums and blogosphere (prior to the social media platforms taking over), easy to use desktop publishing software, access to print on demand publishing services, and the opportunities afforded by the OGL – the Old School Renaissance (or Revival) was born – the term probably first used in 2005.

Now I know there’s a cohort of Old School types who have always rejected the need for the OSR. They maintain they never stopped playing the original games (neither did the OSR people by the way) and that they didn’t need other people to publish new stuff for them and thus there was no “Revival”. But some of us revelled in the explosion of creativity that the OSR generated. The fact is, people publishing new stuff for Old School D&D encouraged others to do the same. Within a couple of years there was simply too much new stuff coming out to keep track of anymore. The Revival had nothing to do with the game not being played, but rather access to gaming materials. And yes, while there were lots of old secondhand rulebooks around, even in the early 2000s the collecting craze was strong and growing, pushing prices up beyond what many considered affordable.

Personally for me, the OSR ended with Google+. There was a mass migration of OSR discussion from blog comments and forums to Google+. I believe this saw a splintering of discussions from single hubs (forums) to a multitude of special interest groups with the result that there was no longer much cross-pollinating of ideas. I saw this as a huge step backwards and I lost interest in the online scene. It seems strange for me to read that many consider the era of Google+ to be the apex of the OSR. For me that apex happened prior to the Google+ migration. After Google+ and other social media platforms became to go to place for the OSR, the focus seemed to largely be about commercialisation rather than community and creativity.

Anyway, around that time WotC put Old School D&D back in print again! Huzzah! The Revolution had become well and truly redundant – or perhaps you could say it achieved its goal. These days I’m happy for OSR to instead stand for Old School Rules. I remain puzzled why the new generation claiming the OSR label as their own often don’t seem to understand the story behind the phrase or why they seem hell-bent on making the Old School games they profess to love as New School as they possibly can - as unlike Old School D&D as possible. So back to my short answer, no I don’t have any investment in the current OSR scene.

[tkdco2]

Just so we're clear on this, are we defining OSR as older editions of D&D plus retroclones, or just the latter? I have a few of the retroclones in my computer, but BFRPG is the only one I have in print and plan to use in the near future. I may also run B/X or 2E.

[waysoftheearth]

Is something like this a fair representation of "then" and "now"? Or is this missing/misrepresenting something?

[Greyharp]

Jun 19, 2021 23:50:23 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

Just so we're clear on this, are we defining OSR as older editions of D&D plus retroclones, or just the latter?

The OSR's retroclones were originally a vehicle to get the rules of older editions of D&D into people's hands cheaply or for free at a time when TSR D&D was no longer in print and secondhand rulebooks were becoming pricey - so I don't think you can separate the two.

[tdenmark]

I'm all in.

I buy OSR stuff. Play OSR stuff. Engage in OSR forums like this one. And I make OSR stuff. And I will continue to do so whether there is a market for new OSR stuff or not.

I don't think OSR can be defined satisfactorily, it is too amorphous. For me it is any game that is generally compatible with the original D&D.

To some degree I'll allow for any 70's or early 80's RPG, but I draw the line roughly before Vampire: the Masquerade. That to me represents a new paradigm in RPG's. A lot of what is being done in the Indie scene that claims to be OSR is way outside the window.

What I really like the most though are modern interpretations of OD&D. Better editing, clearer presentation, better graphics and layout. Refined like rheingold. The more High Gygaxian & Arnesonian the better.

[badger2305]

Jun 20, 2021 0:14:32 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Is something like this a fair representation of "then" and "now"? Or is this missing/misrepresenting something?

While I think there's some value in using this to show degrees of emphasis, I am not at all sure the two Venn diagrams are separate from each other. It's the problem of trying to illustrate these issues symbolically - while useful for some kinds of explanation, it also creates the impression that the two are separate and distinct from one another.

[tetramorph]

Well, folks, I still haven't voted.

I wish I could say the conversation has helped me. But it has only clarified for me the reason why I cannot vote.

It entirely depends upon the definition of OSR. Which itself largely correlates to whether we are talking the "original intent," of the OSR, so to speak, or its cooption by the market as we experience it now.

geoffrey, I can absolutely see why you would vote "all in." But I do not see your contributions as resembling in any way the current cooption and I see your contributions as consistent with the "original" movement.

Greyharp, I also can absolutely see your point. But insofar as there is a renewed interest and capacity to publish items for old rules, and (more importantly to me) old play styles, there is something to the OSR, at least in its "original" sense.

So I still can't vote. But I can say:

OSR BITD: All in.
OSR as marketing for slick hipster products: No way.

[Deleted]

Jun 19, 2021 18:12:20 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

I agree. The point of an alternate label would be: not having to explain "which OSR?" every time OSR is mentioned.

I think I would just explain to anyone who was curious about my game that I prefer to use older rules sets without being part of a scene or movement. I'm not really selling anything so for my purposes a label isn't really helpful. I see things like "OSR" or "Powered By The Apocolypse!" as stickers to slap on your DriveThru product to get more clicks. 

[tetramorph]

I think I would be perfectly happy calling myself OS vs. OSR. Just old school.

But that has been stirred up for me, recently, readings increment's most recent book, the Illusive Shift.

I had previously assumed that "new school" meant, story gamer, and that, because I was "old school," then story gaming must = bad. Because if I don't like it it must be bad. (I mean, my irrational emotive self felt this. Obviously my rational mind would have acknowledged that there is no "bad" fun.)

But I learned fro the Illusive Shift that the tension between the Wargamers and at least a kind of porto-version of "story gaming" goes back to the very foundation of the hobby, as soon as the sci-fi fan clubbers started joining the fun.

I am pretty well committed to story coming after, not before play. And I hate it when people describe the role of the ref as that of "story teller." That said, these tensions are deep in the tradition.

So when we say "old school style play," I wonder what we mean? Do we mean more wargamer style? Or do we mean the sci-fan fan club style before it went full on story gamer?

More to ponder.

[captainjapan]

I'm too late to the OSR scene to be much help, so I will abstain from voting. However, seeing how popular this thread has become, I took the opportunity to educate myself. This is what I found. Dan Proctor, of Labyrinth Lord fame, wrote on the OSR for his blog, in 2008. Before 5th edition, before G+, before Matt Finch's Old School Primer, Dan Proctor explains the importance of WOTC marketing, the difference between new and old school players, and the future of the OSR.

Enjoy!

[Deleted]

Jun 20, 2021 8:39:39 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

I think I would be perfectly happy calling myself OS vs. OSR. Just old school.

But that has been stirred up for me, recently, readings increment 's most recent book, the Illusive Shift.

I had previously assumed that "new school" meant, story gamer, and that, because I was "old school," then story gaming must = bad. Because if I don't like it it must be bad. (I mean, my irrational emotive self felt this. Obviously my rational mind would have acknowledged that there is no "bad" fun.)

But I learned fro the Illusive Shift that the tension between the Wargamers and at least a kind of porto-version of "story gaming" goes back to the very foundation of the hobby, as soon as the sci-fi fan clubbers started joining the fun.

I am pretty well committed to story coming after, not before play. And I hate it when people describe the role of the ref as that of "story teller." That said, these tensions are deep in the tradition.

So when we say "old school style play," I wonder what we mean? Do we mean more wargamer style? Or do we mean the sci-fan fan club style before it went full on story gamer?

More to ponder.

Are you sure that none of the "old school" played "story game", or do you think it is the case because you didn't?

When a game, whichever type it is, stop being that type of game to become a story game for you? Or how would you define story game to be?

[Deleted]

Jun 19, 2021 22:53:39 GMT -6 Greyharp said:

So much so that I have to admit to finding quite insulting the use of the phrase I see popping up fairly regularly lately: “The so called "OSR" movement”. I’m not suggesting this is intended to be personally insulting to anyone, but the phrase “so called” seems to infer that there was never such a thing as the Old School Revival (or whatever R-word people prefer), either that or those of us involved in the scene were delusional to use the term.

You could take in account that not necessarily everyone on internet is from USA or speak English fluently, most of us are doing our best to communicate and exchange experiences on internet. I can see how the term "so called" can bring a cultural stigma for some people, but for a lot others it doesn't mean nothing else than what it should mean, which I guess could be an alternative way to say "what they call".

Most of time when we fell insulted by something, it can be pretty much we insulting ourselves, since we attach arbitrary (non-existent) meanings to things. I never saw someone using the term to imply that you guys are being delusional, but maybe my English isn't really good enough to understand those kind of details. If you felt insulted I ask you sorry.

[Deleted]

I'd be willing to bet an order of magnitude more people bought D&D than ever played Chainmail or were considered wargamers. I think the sales figures for D&D and its meteoric rise over the first few years attest to this. The suggestion that only wargamer D&D is old school would be extreme and grognard-y indeed, wouldn't it? It would seek to invalidate and ignore the experience of a comfortable majority of OD&D players from the seventies and the AD&D players of the early 80's. I don't think I could get behind that definition of Old School D&D.

I think there's a stronger argument to support Tim Kask's assertion that the game began to fundamentally change with printed modules and more codified rules, but my personal idea is that there's this amorphous and hazy period when the tropes and procedures people associated with D&D (the dungeon-crawl, hiring retainers, the Stronghold endgame, resource management, Morale/Reaction rolls, unique subsystems such as aerial combat or jousting, wilderness exploration for its own sake, etc.) began to be replaced with streamlined d20 skills and feats, and more character-oriented stories rather than world-oriented stories. You can have a game that includes elements of both because it's from an in-flux time period. I would argue 2e and BECMI fall into this category. I've got a soft spot for BECMI but I don't think it promotes the original procedures like, say, Holmes or AD&D 1e do.