Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2021 10:30:39 GMT -6
Discussion and sharing via the Internet combined with the judicious use of open content, the D20 SRD, that everybody has equal access too. It seems that the key to your understanding and definition of the OSR is what you see as its intimate relationship with the SDR. This is what allows for a pretty broad understanding for some. Personally I think this thread only illustrates how the term has loss any clear focus. It has become a catch all that is increasingly becoming meaningless. I'm reminded of the Tim Minchin song "If you open your mind too much, your brain falls out " I think any time a definition becomes too broad or amorphous a similar principle is at play. If everything is OSR, nothing is OSR. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 3, 2021 11:24:09 GMT -6
Though this thread has gone off to various places, keep in mind that "TODAY'S" was a key part of the initial reason for the poll question. Not 2009, or 2012, or 2005, or 2015, but the current scene/prolific authors/movers and shakers/products, etc. If I asked this question of myself 10 years ago, my vote would be totally different. Quoting myself from the OP Vote and opine if you care to about where you stand with the 'OSR Scene" in recent times/today. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 3, 2021 11:52:30 GMT -6
It seems that the key to your understanding and definition of the OSR is what you see as its intimate relationship with the SDR. This is what allows for a pretty broad understanding for some. The "hack" that allowed publishing to be added to discussion and informal sharing is not hard to understand. It does take enough work to replicate it for one's own idea so not everybody is interested in making clones. But to make an adventure, setting, or supplement it pretty easy to take that "hack" and use it for one's own purpose. Personally I think this thread only illustrates how the term has loss any clear focus. It has become a catch all that is increasingly becoming meaningless. There was never a clear focus. There was already deep disagreements about what was old school, what was D&D, and so on among the classic edition hobbyist communities around 2005 before OSRIC was worked on or released. The only difference between then and now, is that one could with reasonable efforts follow most of what was going on and hop in with the group that shared one's own taste. Since 2010 that ceased being true. It quite possible a classic edition fan can wander the internet and never encounter the OD&D discussion forum, dragonsfoot, knights and knaves, etc. And wind thinking that the classic edition community is very different than what it actually is. As for the OSR in general it is grounded by the fact that it is judged against the out of print classic edition. The less classic D&Dish a work is the less likely it will appeal or be useful for the group of hobbyist who plays, promotes, or publishes for one of the classic editions. Because there is a center there will be attempts at labeling the group of hobbyist that focuses their efforts on playing, promoting, or publishing for the classic edition. It is a subjective and aesthetic judgement so people are not going to agree where the line is. But when it comes to groups like this it is a different story. By listening and asking question one can figure what appeals to most folks here. Then inform them, when something is produced which is potentially useful. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Sept 3, 2021 12:33:25 GMT -6
If I asked this question of myself 10 years ago, my vote would be totally different. I suppose it’s a function of where you hang out and who you pay attention to. I mostly hang out at the same places—this “Dragonsfoot family” of forums, and they seem mostly unchanged. But in terms of publishing, I couldn’t be happier. A lot of good to great things have happened in the past 10 years--a lot of it in the last 5 years. Premium reprints of AD&D and OD&D and Star Wars WEG 1e and RQ1/2 and CoC1/2 and Judges Guild modules. Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea. The Heroic Legendarium. The Advanced Adventures series. Gunderholfen and Arden Vul and Anthony Huso. Melan’s explosion of products. Rob Conley, the same. Scribes of Sparn! Hoard of Delusion and Broken Castle. Chaotic Henchmen / Hyquaeous Vaults. Mike’s Dungeons + World by Geoffrey. Starships & Spacemen 2e + The Lucanii Drift. What a decade it has been! |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Sept 3, 2021 12:39:51 GMT -6
Discussion and sharing via the Internet combined with the judicious use of open content, the D20 SRD, that everybody has equal access too. It seems that the key to your understanding and definition of the OSR is what you see as its intimate relationship with the SDR. This is what allows for a pretty broad understanding for some. Personally I think this thread only illustrates how the term has loss any clear focus. It has become a catch all that is increasingly becoming meaningless. It doesn't have to remain meaningless. And it helps to reclaim it if we realize the dilution of the term is deliberate. People who thought the OSR was cool and/or trending slapped the label on stuff they did. Other people who thought the OSR was too cool and too popular tried to argue it was worthless because OSR could mean anything. And a lot of people thought OSR had something to do with style instead of method, usually the style of a particular writer/artist. I have particular opinions about what is "old school", but my definition of OSR is broad, simple and easy to understand. The OSR is: - People interested in TSR-era D&D,
- Who reject the idea "old is bad, newer is better",
- And are less interested in tight, rigid game systems,
- Who focus on a DIY approach to game prep and publishing,
- To create gameplay that is to some degree similar to the D&D they love.
Emphasis on "to some degree". Like all real-world definitions (as opposed to geek definitions,) the boundaries between what is OSR and what is not are fuzzy. Some OSR materials might a 50/50 mix of TSR-era D&D and something else, or event 25% TSR D&D/75% something else. Some OSR material uses a lot of new school stuff and only a little of the old school. Some OSR material might be tighter or stricter with game rules. Some of it might just take the dungeon crawl, puzzle solving aspects of D&D and change all the rules (5% TSR D&D, 95% something really modern.) But if some writer or game hits at least 3 of the 5 factors in some way, I'd call them OSR. I might not like all of what's out there today, but I'm able to see there's some connection there. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 3, 2021 12:58:12 GMT -6
If I asked this question of myself 10 years ago, my vote would be totally different. I suppose it’s a function of where you hang out and who you pay attention to. I mostly hang out at the same places—this “Dragonsfoot family” of forums, and they seem mostly unchanged. But in terms of publishing, I couldn’t be happier. A lot of good to great things have happened in the past 10 years--a lot of it in the last 5 years. Premium reprints of AD&D and OD&D and Star Wars WEG 1e and RQ1/2 and CoC1/2 and Judges Guild modules. Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea. The Heroic Legendarium. The Advanced Adventures series. Gunderholfen and Arden Vul and Anthony Huso. Melan’s explosion of products. Rob Conley, the same. Scribes of Sparn! Hoard of Delusion and Broken Castle. Chaotic Henchmen / Hyquaeous Vaults. Mike’s Dungeons + World by Geoffrey. Starships & Spacemen 2e + The Lucanii Drift. What a decade it has been! I guess I don't consider 5- 10 years ago "recent". Many of those products I also own, but they are at least as old as 5E and older- RQ reprints, AD&D reprints, ASSH, Advanced Adventures, etc. I know Arden Vul is recent, some of the others I'm not familiar with. For the sake of clarity, I'd say "today/recent" means "last 2-3 years" |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 3, 2021 14:02:53 GMT -6
It doesn't have to remain meaningless. And it helps to reclaim it if we realize the dilution of the term is deliberate. I generally like your five point definition. But you start by saying it’s broad and then your first point is restrictive. No T&T, runequest, metamorphosis alpha, traveller, chivalry & sorcery, or other third party systems and supplements of the era? I see little reason to try to reclaim a term that I regard as being a phenomenon during a specific time in the hobby. Doing so in my mind would only further dilute its significance. I think the hobby, specifically our little niche, would be better off recognizing that we are at a new place. Whether it needs a name or not is inconsequential to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Sept 3, 2021 17:00:30 GMT -6
For the sake of clarity, I'd say "today/recent" means "last 2-3 years" A good portion of my list is from the last 2-3 years; my personal impression is that the last 2-3 years have been the best yet! |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Sept 3, 2021 17:11:20 GMT -6
It doesn't have to remain meaningless. And it helps to reclaim it if we realize the dilution of the term is deliberate. I generally like your five point definition. But you start by saying it’s broad and then your first point is restrictive. No T&T, runequest, metamorphosis alpha, traveller, chivalry & sorcery, or other third party systems and supplements of the era? Nope. Because although those are all older games, most of them don't have "old school" and "new school" phases, when the game changed dramatically. And because the phrase "OSR" came about specifically in response to stuff happening in the D&D community. Traveller, I seem to recall, did have a particular edition that changed rules dramatically, creating a split in the fanbase, which sparked a movement similar to the OSR. I don't recall the name, but the point is that it does have a name of its own. It doesn't need the OSR. There may have been a similar major revamp of Metamorphosis Alpha. I seem to remember that Gamma World had a major system rewrite and that there was a revised Metamorphosis Alpha using that new system. But I don't know for sure how different the editions were, or whether there was a reaction to that break with the past. However, original Gamma World and Metamorphosis Alpha were basically modified TSR-era D&D, anyways, so there's a good argument that they count as TSR-era D&D, anyways... and, in fact, there's a Labyrinth Lord spin-off called Mutant Future that's already covering that in the OSR. So, not as limiting as you'd think. And don't discount Point 5 or the following paragraph about "to some degree". Merely liking Tunnels & Trolls is not "OSR", it's T&T fandom. But making a supplement that merges 95% of T&T with 5% of TSR D&D counts as OSR, as I described it. So where's the problem? |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 3, 2021 18:41:43 GMT -6
For the sake of clarity, I'd say "today/recent" means "last 2-3 years" A good portion of my list is from the last 2-3 years; my personal impression is that the last 2-3 years have been the best yet! So lots of recent purchases, good! For my own part- I think I've bought a fair amount of items in the past few years, but not too much of it has been OSR produced. It's been actual OLD product (like my 1st print MM, T&T PDFs) or new non OSR items (13th Age, Dungeon World, some 5E things) FOR OSR stuff, some recent purchases were thegreyelf 's trilogy of Spellcraft & Swordplay PDFs (I have one of the old print copies). Zenopus 's Ruined Tower of Zenopus. I pledged on that DCC RPG mummy queen Kickstarter I'm drawing a blank on anything else ATM. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 3, 2021 19:27:34 GMT -6
And don't discount Point 5 or the following paragraph about "to some degree". Merely liking Tunnels & Trolls is not "OSR", it's T&T fandom. But making a supplement that merges 95% of T&T with 5% of TSR D&D counts as OSR, as I described it. So where's the problem? I'm glad you have found a working understanding of the OSR for yourself. Don't let my opinion dissuade you. Yet you seem to be cherry picking, unless your definition only includes the writing of rules. During this time period people were certainly cloning rule sets like T&T (with no % of TSR D&D). There were also those writing supplements and scenarios/modules for OOP editions (again no TSR D&D). Point one of your definition includes all D&D up to 2e as OSR. This begs the question- Is Castles & Crusades OSR? How about DCC? Humanspace Empires, Encounter Critical, Microlite20, Crypts & Things, Legends of the Ancient World, Starships & Spacemen, Beyond the Wall, or any of the supplemental material associated with this assortment?, just to name a few that seem to fall outside of your definition. There's many more. It would phase me little if you tell me none of the above is OSR, though I think people would likely disagree. Possibly you'll find exceptions for all the above. In that case it would appear to be easier to say what the OSR isn't. edit: perhaps you could clarify for me what you mean by "new school". |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 3, 2021 22:02:24 GMT -6
Traveller, I seem to recall, did have a particular edition that changed rules dramatically, creating a split in the fanbase, which sparked a movement similar to the OSR. I don't recall the name, but the point is that it does have a name of its own. It doesn't need the OSR. It called Cepheus and it came about because Mongoose screwed up royally the third party publishing program for the release of the Mongoose Traveller 2nd Edition. By that point the Traveller hobby finally had a robust niche of non Third Imperium setting created by the independent using the OGL and the Traveller Logo program. This was switched to the then new community content program of DriveThruRPG by Mongoose for 2e. The license for that program would have locked up all these original settings forever to that program. Every one said no way and continued with 1e until Jason Kemp did the work of mashing up the MGT 1e SRD with the Trav20 open content with bits of D20 Modern to create Cepheus. The. everybody switched to using Cepheus. Without the clauses that resulted in lock-in all of these authors would happily jumped to MgT 2e. After D&D 4e it is the hobby’s best example of a publisher shooting themselves in the foot with a fusion gun man portable. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Sept 4, 2021 12:48:19 GMT -6
And don't discount Point 5 or the following paragraph about "to some degree". Merely liking Tunnels & Trolls is not "OSR", it's T&T fandom. But making a supplement that merges 95% of T&T with 5% of TSR D&D counts as OSR, as I described it. So where's the problem? I'm glad you have found a working understanding of the OSR for yourself. Don't let my opinion dissuade you. Yet you seem to be cherry picking, unless your definition only includes the writing of rules. During this time period people were certainly cloning rule sets like T&T (with no % of TSR D&D). There were also those writing supplements and scenarios/modules for OOP editions (again no TSR D&D). You're missing the point. "OSR" is a label that was specifically applied to a group of people reviving interest in TSR-era D&D and its features. The term was first used in a TSR-era D&D forum. As the term became more popular, it was applied to materials derived from or compatible with TSR-era D&D. There may or may not have been similar activities among other fandoms for RPGs from the same era. But those fandoms would have their own names for what was going on, assuming they even felt the need to name it. They might have just said "T&T houserules" or *T&T clone". But they aren't "OSR", because "OSR" is an ad-hoc term (like a genre label) created by people so they could find more of the same. Why would people focused on finding TSR-era D&D material want to find T&T adventures? Or vice versa? It's not like anyone's being excluded from a club. There is no OSR club. It's a label made for the convenience of fans of "things like that". Not sure how you got turned around here, but point one of my definition does not include ANY D&D. It includes only people. This is an operational definition: you start with a person, ask "Are they interested in TSR-era D&D?" then "Do they reject the idea that old is bad and newer is better?", "Are they less interested in tight, rigid game systems", "Do they focus on a DIY approach?", "Are they creating gameplay that is to some degree similar to the D&D they love?" You have to answer "Yes" or at least "Sort of" to most of those questions. If so, that person is part of the OSR, or published material made with those questions in mind will be OSR products. So what about those examples? - Castles & Crusades fits. It's a well-known early example of the OSR. - OD&D, AD&D 1e, and AD&D 2e do not fit, because they weren't made by fans looking back at those systems. - Semi-pro or fan-made adventures and supplements for OD&D and AD&D 1e/2e do fit, because they were. - Microlite20 doesn't fit (it's simplified 3e,) but Microlite74 and so on, which are based off M20, are. - (And therefore, the M20 stuff I made to emulate The Fantasy Trip isn't OSR, even though I write stuff I consider OSR.) The rest of your examples I don't know enough about to label OSR or not. Depends on what the creator intended, or whether people looking for D&D-compatible material found them useful. I can clarify "new school", but in the generic sense, which is the way I'm using it here. Something has "old school" and "new school" phases when there's a major overhaul that people notice and react to. Earliest example I could find was from late 19th/early 20th century writings about the Anglican church, where apparently they had a major change in the way they conducted worship and had some people rejecting the new stuff, so that people spoke about a particular church being "old school" or "new school" and argued about which was better. I feel like there's got to be earlier examples of the phrase, because people have been talking about "schools" of art or philosophy since way before that... but when I did a search a couple years back, this was the oldest I found. Later examples pop up with fans of funk and hip hop. There's "old school" funk and "new school" funk, "old school" rap and "new school" rap. As an outsider I can't really say what the difference is or if it's as big a difference as fans think it is, but even I can tell there's a difference between "Rapper's Delight", "Jam On It", and "Baby Got Back" versus newer stuff I might occasionally hear in media. I don't think I need to explain to you that D&D fans noticed a big difference between OD&D through AD&D 2e on one hand and D&D 3e and later on the other. What those differences are and how important they are may be an eternal subject of debate, but it's obvious there is a difference, and it's a historical fact that fans split into factions because of that difference. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 4, 2021 13:45:54 GMT -6
talysman Is the OSR people or things? You seem to want to vacillate between the two. I don't think compartmentalizing the subject is actually helpful. For example, as you pointed out C&C is often noted as an early example of OSR, yet it's built on 3e. Likewise, you will find many roleplayers enjoy a variety of platforms beyond D&D. Are they only an active identified part of the OSR when they are enjoying a game modeled after pre-3e D&D?
|
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 4, 2021 14:41:40 GMT -6
talysman Is the OSR people or things? You seem to want to vacillate between the two. I don't think compartmentalizing the subject is actually helpful. For example, as you pointed out C&C is often noted as an early example of OSR, yet it's built on 3e. Likewise, you will find many roleplayers enjoy a variety of platforms beyond D&D. Are they only an active identified part of the OSR when they are enjoying a game modeled after pre-3e D&D? I can't answer for Talysman, but consider this. Once a upon time on a planet that lies beneath our feet, a bunch of folks who still played and liked some out of print editions of the world's most popular roleplaying game encounter each other on this relatively new thing called the internet. At first it was a bit hard because most discussion centered around the current edition which was AD&D 2e at the time with a healthy does of World of Darkness. All the RPG forums were general interest and those two among other dominated the topics on Usenet and AOL. Which only got worse when D&D got a shot in the arm with the arrival of D&D 3.0 in 1999. But the internet was also maturing and software that allowed you to run your own discussion forums became common. So these folks started their own and quickly one of them, Dragonsfoot, became popular. Along with this D&D 3.0 got the open content D20 System Reference Document and there was a handful of folks who got mileage out of the idea of new edition rules, old edition feel among them Goodman Games, Troll Lord Games, and Necromancer Games. While nice that wasn't what most of these folks were looking, nor it was not what newcomers who were interested in playing the older editions 'as is' were looking for either. Then came wind circa 2003 that one of these "old edition feel" companies, Troll Lord Games, was making something that was going to be the 2nd coming of AD&D 1e. But as development progression it soon became obvious that while AD&D 1e compatibility was a priority the actual system, Castles & Castles was not a rebirth of AD&D. It was it own thing that happen also be able to use AD&D stuff 'as is' as long you use the C&C version of monsters and treasures. Also by this time many fans of older editions were starting to produce adventures and supplement and sharing like the file section of Dragonsfoot. Also zines started appearing like OD&Dities. So those who were unhappy with the direction of Castles & Crusade or just were inspired by what could have been started taking the next step, an actual clone of an older editions. Chris Gonnerman wrote Basic Fantasy, Matt Finch, and Stuart Marshall wrote OSRIC. OSRIC in particular stirred a lot of controversy and a lot of folks waited in 2007 for the other shoe to drop. But didn't stop Dan Proctor who wrote and released Labyrinth Lord. However while there were not many clone release the release of adventures, setting, and supplements started to pick up. Throughout 2008 it was becoming increasing apparent that Wizards wasn't going to shut down any of the clones. The debacle of 4th edition there was a bunch of hobbyist were looking for alternatives and started becoming interested in older editions. This further fueled a creative ferment and amount of material being shared or formally published started to take off including more clones. The release of two version of Swords & Wizardry covered the base of Original Dungeons & Dragons. The late 2000's also saw the advent of print on demand publishing. Lulu became the site of choice for many publishers releasing material for older editions Around 2009 to 2010, Lulu supported storefront that with permission can host a bunch of link to different authors books. And the Old School Renaissance store front was one of these. It was only around for a year or two. But it was a key waypoint on the path of OSR and Old School Renaissance/Revival/Rules becoming THE label for what folks were doing with older editions. But the use of a single label was always a poor fit. The folks who never stopped playing for older editions generally, but not always, didn't want to lumped in with the newer publishers. The different publishers used the older editions in very different ranging from the weird horror of Carcosa, my game of throne like Majestic Wilderlands, Dan Proctor's Mutant Future, and other which had a more traditional take on the material. So in the beginning, OSR was a label for both people and things. Then as it is now, what is actually happening depend on the group and individual you are talking about. It not a feel, it not a theme, it may not be even a set of mechanics. The only constant is generally OSR is applied to something that ties back to a theme or the mechanics of an older edition of classic edition. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 4, 2021 17:17:15 GMT -6
My question was more rhetorical robertsconley . I'm well aware of the convergence of events and those who were notably involved. Though I think what was happening was slightly broader than what Wiki suggests and looks over less notable individuals. Maybe you would consider yourself one of them. More so, there was a renewed interest in all things old that represented a certain manner of play, not just D&D. I can only suggest that even if there was no SRD there still would have been a revival or renaissance, which ever you prefer. OSR label or not. Hind sight being what it is. I acknowledge it would have looked different. The internet was certainly the impetus that enabled conversation and ideas to be shared among like minded folk. It was also the means that actual documents passed hands in rapid fashion. Do you realize how many home brewed rpg's existed in digital form on the web prior to the OSR? <rhetorical- let's just say a plethora>. Most of these are now lost to time or hiding in the corner of someone's dusty hard drive. A few web pages with lists of dead links can still be found. This isn't even suggestive of anything nefarious either. These were legitimate efforts of the DIY ethos. Of course everyone knows there was and continues to be pirated works floating around the web as well. Much of this was happening despite the OSR. People were playing their games, perhaps old dog eared copies of their youth or extensive house rule documents developed through years of play, with no debt owed to the SRD. And the internet let them talk about it and POD let them reproduce physical copies. Monetization is also the little spoken of catch to some of the "why" of the OSR. I don't mean this to sound conspiratorial either. It's a simple matter that people wanted to be able to get something in return for the things they created and the effort they put into it. As a result, we have a hodge-podge of increasingly high quality products mixed with what could be considered nicely as less so. And this is somehow a gauge of the health of the OSR. hmmm. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Sept 4, 2021 18:31:22 GMT -6
Castles & Castles ...... was it own thing that happen also be able to use AD&D stuff 'as is' as long you use the C&C version of monsters and treasures. I don't recall hearing this kind of talk during the development of C&C, I'm surprised to hear that, Rob. I know for my part, I used the AD&D Monster/Monstrous Manuals with the C&C PHB and didn't even bother with M&T until it was out for a year or so. The AD&D books worked just fine....Flip AC, use HD for any bonus (like S&W), and make a quick judgement on whether a creature has Physical or Mental PRIMES. Same for the 3.0 MM- easy- just eliminate the extra HP granted by CON and look at FRW to pick what saves are PRIME. /Tangent |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 4, 2021 21:55:08 GMT -6
Much of this was happening despite the OSR. The thing is I don't consider the OSR to be a separate thing from everything you described. The only difference that in the late 2000s a shorthand label was developed that was easier to use rather than writing out "the group of hobbyists playing, promoting, and publishing for the classic edition." It wasn't happening despite the OSR, it was the OSR. Monetization is also the little spoken of catch to some of the "why" of the OSR. I don't mean this to sound conspiratorial either. It's a simple matter that people wanted to be able to get something in return for the things they created and the effort they put into it. I happened to be one of those who want to get a return for things I create. The point of which it allows me to expand the scope of what I do and do things like pay artists for their work. As a result, we have a hodge-podge of increasingly high quality products mixed with what could be considered nicely as less so. And this is somehow a gauge of the health of the OSR. hmmm. If folks are using it as gauge for the health of the community with plays, promotes, and publishes for classic editions of D&D then it is a stupid measure to follow. It long been obvious that in aggregate both the sharing and publishing aspect of the OSR are just as large as any 2nd tier RPG maybe even equal to a half dozen or so at this point. But whatever the number is, it is comprised of dozens of folks efforts and it is continually churning regardless whether it sharing, discussion, promotion, or publishing. My view there is no separate "OSR" there is just a group of hobbyist who are doing a bunch of things that can be traced back to one of the classic editions. If you or others don't want to use the label that fine. While I write about the OSR a lot and consider myself as part of the OSR, I don't use it as part of my branding because it doesn't tell anybody beyond a connection to a classic edition what I am about. So I am happy to use it as a shorthand. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 4, 2021 21:56:25 GMT -6
Castles & Castles ...... was it own thing that happen also be able to use AD&D stuff 'as is' as long you use the C&C version of monsters and treasures. I don't recall hearing this kind of talk during the development of C&C, I'm surprised to hear that, Rob. I know for my part, I used the AD&D Monster/Monstrous Manuals with the C&C PHB and didn't even bother with M&T until it was out for a year or so. The AD&D books worked just fine....Flip AC, use HD for any bonus (like S&W), and make a quick judgement on whether a creature has Physical or Mental PRIMES. Same for the 3.0 MM- easy- just eliminate the extra HP granted by CON and look at FRW to pick what saves are PRIME. /Tangent I got Castles & Crusade well after the release of Monster & Treasure in 2005. And never really used it much as I found Swords & Wizardry Core more useful. I probably haven't cracked the book in a decade. But it doesn't surprise me there was a straight forward conversion from AD&D stats to be useful for C&C PHB alone. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 5, 2021 15:35:55 GMT -6
It wasn't happening despite the OSR, it was the OSR. Yes it was the OSR, if by that you mean the phenomena of people returning to the roots of the hobby. I don't want to belabor this. It just seems that people who were invested in D&D throughout this period tend to get tunnel vision about the OSR and fail to recognize the demographics that were at play. Essentially, kids of the 80's who were brought up on the heavily marketed BX and AD&D 1e, as well as other games of the period, came to an age in the early 2000's where they had kids of their own and/or some disposable income. Tie this with a bit of nostalgia and the easy access of the internet and you start to get an idea of why the interest existed and grew. This continues to unfold as those brought up on BECMI and 2e and so on reach a similar place. It would seem reasonable to expect those brought up during the 3e era are those currently returning to the hobby. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 5, 2021 17:05:38 GMT -6
Yes it was the OSR, if by that you mean the phenomena of people returning to the roots of the hobby. That not quite what I mean by using the term OSR. People returning to the roots of the hobby was only part of it. There were people who like the systems for themselves. There were folks that never quit playing. And so on. I literally mean the hobbyists who play, promote, and/or publish for the classic editions. I don't try to figure out their motivations or why they are using or tying something to the classic edition mechanics and themes. If pick and use up one of these systems whether it the original or something related to the original by theme or mechanics, you are part of the OSR. Play, publish, share, and promote. I don't want to belabor this. Personally I don't get why folks have to attribute a deep meaning it all. Why can't folks realize the correct answer is "all of the above". Yes my own particular focus is on "players trashing the setting". Yes it originated in what I did in the early 80s and before that wargaming in the late 70s. But what I write about it now is leavened by four decades of experience of using multiple systems some of which are very different than the classic edition. So I do not feel a deep connection with what many call "old school". Where the OSR material was useful to me was realizing that what I do is not connected to any particular system at all. I don't need GURPS do what I need to do. I can use say OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. Maybe not quite 'as is' but still remain compatible. Others found their own connections in their own way including returning to the roots after learning about how it was done, and seeing examples of actual play. Some never stopped but now found more people to play with or to referee for. Hence "all of the above". But again there is a center in the form of several out of print editions with enough pull so that the sense there a larger community of folks using these systems persists. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 5, 2021 17:50:16 GMT -6
Personally I don't get why folks have to attribute a deep meaning it all. Well, I guess that is where we will have to leave it then Rob. For my part I don't see this as attributing anything deeply meaningful. Nor am I saying there were not other factors, as is clear in my opening statement of my previous response. What I am saying is that you and others are choosing not to acknowledge the obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by aramis on Sept 6, 2021 4:10:00 GMT -6
It has been a fairly common and openly held sentiment in the Google Plus / social media "OSR" crowd that gamers who do not accept the woke credo should have no place in the hobby. Thanks for the clarification. Weren't you a little suspect of G+ to begin with? I mean it seemed like that was part of what people were touting as a positive feature compared to places like this forum. Essentially people could form their own little closed groups that insulated them from those they wanted to exclude. Many forums have even largely moved in this direction, from an open format to a closed one. *I should note that I don't really participate on most social media. Never was interested in G+. Looked at it as counter productive to the health of the old school community. But I guess the times are a changin'. G+ having been gone a good while now... I'll note that the OSR wasn't unified even at start... When people were writing GORE and OSRIC, there were others stripping down D20 for non-emulation (EG: Basic Fantasy), and others still writing games around the old school design space, but not actually clones (eg: Mazes and Minotaurs)... And a bunch of people working on old school feel but with more modern mechanics... and cross-effort kudos and criticisms galore. G+ wasn't the only hotspot - there were people on MySpace and WordPress blogging, plus the Delphi forums... |
|
|
|
Post by aramis on Sept 6, 2021 4:15:22 GMT -6
Castles & Castles ...... was it own thing that happen also be able to use AD&D stuff 'as is' as long you use the C&C version of monsters and treasures. I don't recall hearing this kind of talk during the development of C&C, I'm surprised to hear that, Rob. I know for my part, I used the AD&D Monster/Monstrous Manuals with the C&C PHB and didn't even bother with M&T until it was out for a year or so. The AD&D books worked just fine....Flip AC, use HD for any bonus (like S&W), and make a quick judgement on whether a creature has Physical or Mental PRIMES. Same for the 3.0 MM- easy- just eliminate the extra HP granted by CON and look at FRW to pick what saves are PRIME. /Tangent It was put forward as such very early in the release; you don't really even need the M&T unless you are using magic-using critters. I did just enough solo play to realize I liked it less than AD&D, but the whitebox was cool to have. |
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Oct 18, 2021 16:42:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Oct 18, 2021 23:48:38 GMT -6
The comic shop guy made me chuckle. He was sooo sincere and he seemed to know his way around some of the OSR games - a plus. 5e deserves a champion like him. One problem, though: he has a touch of spittle on his lower lip that gets drawn into thin strands as he speaks. My 7th grade social studies teacher, Mr. Hupp, had the same problem. I say it distracts, too much, from the message. Sorry, I couldn't watch the rebutal, since I saw that it was TWENTY NINE minutes long! |
|
|
|
Post by aramis on Oct 19, 2021 2:48:08 GMT -6
But, the whole "legality" concern was fuzzy at best and people have and do make/distribute new materials for old games without (it seems) much fuss. The old rules are now cheap as pdfs; printing is no difficulty. The legality issue was a real issue... except in the US. Several EU members use the "Creators Rights" model, which does protect game mechanics in at least France and Deutschland. Probably most of the The US Copyright does NOT cover game mechanics, only the literal text explaining them. 17 USC 102(b)... The UK Copyright isn't the same coverage as the US; I don't know the details. The SRD was a godsend, as it made it clear one wasn't going to be sued... It is like G+ was made for the gaming community, and OSR in particular. Then Google pulled the rug out from underneath us. Like they've done with so many products. I still haven't fully recovered from losing G+ or Google Reader, they were my goto platforms for years. It kept my internet surfing manageable. Now it seems like chaos. It's an interesting list: killedbygoogle.com/Facebook morphed to kill google's G+... and once G+ was dead, started morphing away. But G+ and Google strangled MySpace from a blogging and feed to the music site now camped on it. The end of myspace was the end of my "games influencer" time... |
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Oct 19, 2021 15:40:43 GMT -6
The comic shop guy made me chuckle. He was sooo sincere and he seemed to know his way around some of the OSR games - a plus. 5e deserves a champion like him. One problem, though: he has a touch of spittle on his lower lip that gets drawn into thin strands as he speaks. My 7th grade social studies teacher, Mr. Hupp, had the same problem. I say it distracts, too much, from the message. Sorry, I couldn't watch the rebutal, since I saw that it was TWENTY NINE minutes long! The rebuttal basically states why the claims of the other poster are false. The length of the video is partly because he talks a little about the different D&D editions from OD&D to 2E. You can skip that part. Toward the end he gets a little repetitive how playing OSR does not harm society. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2021 16:58:39 GMT -6
Apropos of nothing at all, but there was a thread at the RPG subreddit a month ago where almost everyone was talking about the OSR in the past tense, as if it's completely over and done with forever. I guess since Google + went away? I don't really know what the thought process or rationale is there. I would argue it's changed and probably diminished quite a bit over the past few years, or rather it's going through a waning phase currently, but it's pretty obvious it's not completely burned out yet. I live in a rural, out of the way area in Tennessee and the local game shop hosts Dungeon Crawl Classics games more than once monthly. That's one small anecdote but I think it indicates that there's still some kind of old school renaissance going on. I suspect the "evolution" of 5e will probably temporarily stimulate and swell it again, since such spaces and movements do have a reactionary element to them at all times. I think it'll continue to be a thing to some degree for as long as people play tabletop games, because people will always explore the margins of their hobbies or areas of interests to find what lies beyond the mainstream.
|
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Oct 19, 2021 17:14:41 GMT -6
Maybe nobody in that forum is currently playing OSR games and don't know anyone who does. But the OSR is still around, whether people play TSR-era D&D or retroclones. I'm pretty sure folks are playing older editions of games produced by other companies, so I think they can be included in the OSR. Here are a few of them worth mentioning. www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5uqrzC9iaw |
|
