If you had to pick, would you go with TSR or OSR?

[geoffrey]

On the one hand is everything A/D&D related that was ever published by TSR from 1974 to 2000 (from the original D&D boxed set up to the eve of 3rd edition D&D).

On the other hand is everything A/D&D related that has ever been published by the OSR (Old School Renaissance) from 2001 to today (starting with the HackMaster Players Handbook). This includes free stuff (such as downloads here on dragonsfoot).

If you could use only one or the other, which would it be? TSR stuff, or OSR stuff?

Though it's a tough call, I would go with the OSR. While the TSR stuff is awesome, I think the OSR stuff has taken things up a notch by standing on the shoulders of giants.

NOTE: In this scenario, you can still use your Judges Guild, Arduin, etc. with either of your choices.

[cadriel]

I voted TSR. I'd rather run white box OD&D and I wouldn't want to give up the AD&D DMG for any amount of OSR stuff.

[Koren n'Rhys]

Well, I voted TSR here and on Dragonsfoot. Gave my reasons there, but figured I'd at least get in the poll both places.

I guess I just want to keep it simple and tell people we're playing D&D. I'd love it if the box sets or RC were still in print. Since they're not, we need to be able to point to the clones if someone wants a copy of the rules without resorting to ebay. The OSR has produced some neat house-rule variants and given me ideas to drop into my campaign, but I'd never actually run ACKS, or LotFP or any other clone as-is.

[paulg]

OSR, largely because of the wide use of GPL licensing. I like the freedom to remix and redistribute stuff. If the LBB's were still legally available as PDF's, I might vote differently.

[monk]

If it's a matter of "use", OSR for me. Though I own a lot of TSR products, and get a lot of inspiration from rereading Holmes and the 3 LBBs, I play with Labyrinth Lord at the table and find immeasurably more to use from Fight On! than I do from any of the TSR modules or rulebooks.

(I've never really been a fan of 1e...too tight and technical for me)

[Ynas Midgard]

Definitely OSR. With any of the freely available systems, Fight On! and Land of NOD magazines, and the many fantastic adventures published so far, I could play forever without a single thought of TSR products. Plus, I started gaming after 2000, so even the "nostalgia factor" is kinda meaningless to me.

[cadriel]

It's interesting that the people who've answered on this forum have been weakly pro OSR (5 to 4) while on Dragonsfoot it's overwhelmingly pro TSR (68%). Particularly on this forum, as I feel that running Swords & Wizardry would be several steps downward from 3LBB OD&D.

To me this isn't about the nostalgia factor. I find the AD&D DMG and the Monster & Treasure assortments very useful in dungeon stocking, and to be honest I'd rather have my collection of TSR modules than my stack of OSR modules, even though some of them are decent. And there were hundreds of Dragon magazines, but only 13 FOs....all told I don't think the OSR is going to get there. Which is fine, but I don't think promoting the "OSR > TSR" meme is useful.

Edit to add: While I was typing that, apparently the vote went to 5/5 here.

[Falconer]

TSR. I don’t think I’ve ever used an OSR product in a game. Oh, there was one abortive attempt at Castle Zagyg. But over all, with a baby on the way, I am purging my collection, and what little OSR stuff I had (mostly Kuntz modules) is pretty much all going to get sold. Because the TSR and JG stuff I have is more than adequate to fire up my imagination.

[novocastrian]

I'd rather listen to The Beatles than to Oasis

[kent]

I think the OSR through a proliferation of vanity projects has done nothing but obscure the fact the the three core AD&D books (and if you like the OD&D box) are works of majesty which keep on giving. It was always intended that a creative DM would go his own way with these books referring back to Gygax' essays to keep his bearings if he wished but venturing far afield if he did not.

The idea that dud adventures and inferior reinventions of the wheel, polygonal wheels let's call them, written in amateurish prose might be preferred to the core books is baffling to me.

Exegisis of the texts as a ground for outward exploration, canon formation from among supplements of gifted first generation gamers and extolling only pure invention of talented active gamers should have been the daily bread of the forums and blogs. Instead, what's this ... ? Muck and vanity and more muck for my dollars.

[owlorbs]

TSR for me all the way. Luckily, I don't have to actually choose and I can have both.

OSR = Inspiration
TSR = Application

[terje]

Well, there is a great amount of good material from TSR but if I look at what I use at the table its predominantly OSR stuff.

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 19, 2012 15:18:41 GMT -6 kent said:

I think the OSR through a proliferation of vanity projects has done nothing but obscure the fact the the three core AD&D books (and if you like the OD&D box) are works of majesty which keep on giving.

(emphasis mine)

I agree totally with your assessment of the OD&D and AD&D core books, but I could hardly disagree more with your assessment of the OSR. At the very least it has encouraged a raft of gamers to get up and create something. Gygax himself encouraged gamers to create (and print!) and share, and the OSR has (among other things) been a vehicle for exactly that.

Jul 19, 2012 15:18:41 GMT -6 kent said:

The idea that dud adventures and inferior reinventions of the wheel, polygonal wheels let's call them, written in amateurish prose might be preferred to the core books is baffling to me.

The paradigm that all genuine inspiration occurred in the mid 70s, that all worthwhile creations have already been made, and that everything new is merely a flawed regurgitation of what has come before is a pretty mean, dispirited and, quite frankly, baffling world view.

While the original works of D&D were indeed majestic, they were not perfect. There is ample room for creativity and inspiration; and there always will be. Every gamer can create something meaningful in accordance with his interest and ability, to the general benefit of the gaming community as a whole. Even, dare I say it, those who don't care to acknowledge it.

[Falconer]

Not to speak for Kent (I think my angle is somewhat different), but I have a few points:

First of all, every time someone — invariably a publisher or published author — proposes this “TSR or OSR?” dichotomy/juxtaposition, it strikes me as hubristic in the extreme. This is not the OSR I signed up for. It’s the exact same arrogance that caused Dave Cook, Monte Cook, and Mike Mearls to offer their “fixes” to Gary’s D&D.

The OSR I signed up for said: I don’t need your published products to “fix” D&D for me. Gary gave me the keys to the car; now I’m in the driver’s seat. The early days of the OSR were magical, because D&D suddenly became a hobby again, self-insulated from the industry.

Individual creativity is great. Sharing your work is fine. Charging money for it? Sure, I’ll buy a shiny hardcover or a sturdy box. Dissing TSR D&D in favor of your “OSR” product? In my opinion, that ironically puts you outside the genuine OSR.

[geoffrey]

Jul 19, 2012 22:26:04 GMT -6 Falconer said:

Gary gave me the keys to the car; now I’m in the driver’s seat.

[waysoftheearth]

I guess my point was that generalisations about the virtues of stuff on either side of the fence are unlikely to be truly representative.

(FWIW -- I didn't vote either way).

[Melan]

I will happily stand on the shoulders of giants, but not in their shadows. I have nothing to say to those who worship the dust on their tattered but now unplayed DMGs or priceless copies of Palace of the Vampire Queen (Near Mint, shrinkwrapped), but will happily sit down and play with someone getting new ideas out of Ready Ref Sheets in the now.

[kent]

Jul 19, 2012 19:28:04 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

I agree totally with your assessment of the OD&D and AD&D core books, but I could hardly disagree more with your assessment of the OSR. At the very least it has encouraged a raft of gamers to get up and create something. Gygax himself encouraged gamers to create (and print!) and share, and the OSR has (among other things) been a vehicle for exactly that.

I think the OSR is a shell of activity completely independent of the real creativity that is required from a DM in preparing for his campaign and the creative feedback that comes from players immersing themselves in play.

I strongly believe that it is not possible for the best DMs, the most creative, to bottle what they do for imitation at some other gametable. All the ingenuity and invention is at the service, on game day, of the game in motion, very little of which in my view can survive transmission in an orderly fashion on paper. As a DM I bring *all that I know* to the gametable not the comparatively miniscule *all that I have written down*.

I don't think that uncreative types, even if they are in the majority, relying on messages in bottles from the OSR to keep their games alive have any say in defining what is best about D&D, and the OSR is very much a movement which caters for uncreative types by definition.

Jul 19, 2012 19:28:04 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

While the original works of D&D were indeed majestic, they were not perfect. There is ample room for creativity and inspiration; and there always will be.

I made clear that I think of the core books as a starting point for creativity, one's own creativity.

The books may not be 'perfect' but they have never remotely been improved upon as a universal ground for creative DMs to begin thinking about their own campaigns.

Jul 20, 2012 1:12:58 GMT -6 Melan said:

I will happily stand on the shoulders of giants, but not in their shadows.

This is presumptuous. Look again. It takes a lot of talent to get up onto those shoulders. Newton did not say we are all now standing on ..., he said *he* was standing on ...

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 20, 2012 3:48:42 GMT -6 kent said:

I think the OSR is a shell of activity completely independent of the real creativity that is required from a DM in preparing for his campaign and the creative feedback that comes from players immersing themselves in play.

That's fine. For me the OSR is about the distinction between grass roots gamers making D&D their own, and the top-down corporate approach where consumers are told what D&D "officially" is.

Jul 20, 2012 3:48:42 GMT -6 kent said:

I strongly believe that it is not possible for the best DMs, the most creative, to bottle what they do for imitation at some other gametable.

Yet that's exactly what D&D original authors did, and you're happy to heap praise upon the products they bottled in the 70s and 80s. Curious.

Jul 20, 2012 3:48:42 GMT -6 kent said:

All the ingenuity and invention is at the service, on game day, of the game in motion, very little of which in my view can survive transmission in an orderly fashion on paper.

Yet TSR managed to transmit something onto paper in the products that do seem to satisfy you. What "magical" ability did they possess then which is nowhere to be found now?

Jul 20, 2012 3:48:42 GMT -6 kent said:

As a DM I bring *all that I know* to the gametable not the comparatively miniscule *all that I have written down*.

It would have to be a colossal body of work, I don't doubt. It's a great pity you don't write it down!

Jul 20, 2012 3:48:42 GMT -6 kent said:

I don't think that uncreative types, even if they are in the majority, relying on messages in bottles from the OSR to keep their games alive have any say in defining what is best about D&D, and the OSR is very much a movement which caters for uncreative types by definition.

It seems just a little bit too easy to dismiss the collective endeavours of a majority of gamers as "uncreative", and to sever rights that such gamers shouldn't have.

You might be staggeringly brilliant for all I know, Kent. But if you won't share your genius with others then it is all for naught. Imagine if DA and EGG never bothered to write any of it down, but instead kept it to their own private gaming tables. Then there would be no D&D, no OSR, and we wouldn't be having this "discussion" here on this board.

Jul 20, 2012 3:48:42 GMT -6 kent said:

The books may not be 'perfect' but they have never remotely been improved upon as a universal ground for creative DMs to begin thinking about their own campaigns.

(emphasis mine)

Once again you outright dismiss the collective works of countless folk across decades of endeavour. There could not possibly! have been anything of any merit produced in the last 30 years, nor will there ever be again! It's absurd.


You have some strong opinions Kent, but good gaming to you Sir.

[Finarvyn]

I voted "TSR" because that's the way I voted on Dragonsfoot and wanted to be consistent, but I'm not sure that's the "right" vote for me.

The TSR material forms the foundation of my gaming life and my campaigns. Without the TSR stuff (OD&D, Boot Hill, Metamorphosis Alpha, etc.) my gaming world would be soooo different. My favorite rules sets, given a choice of TSR versus post-TSR for the same settings, tend to be the TSR versions.

However, I hadn't considered that Judges Guild would count as non-TSR, since they were licensed and I acquired the best JG stuff at around the same time. In my mind I was making a seperation of "early" versus "late" and not really TSR versus "other" so I'm not sure anymore about my choice.

I love a lot of the newer stuff, mostly C&C and DCC RPG and none of this could have happened without TSR getting the ball rolling. Heck, in the past decade I've probably played more C&C than OD&D, and DCC is totally dominating my time at the moment. That would certainly seem to say that I should have voted OSR.

Heck, I don't know anymore. I'm glad to have both.

[Melan]

Jul 20, 2012 3:48:42 GMT -6 kent said:

This is presumptuous. Look again. It takes a lot of talent to get up onto those shoulders. Newton did not say we are all now standing on ..., he said *he* was standing on ...

Gary Gygax and his contemporaries did not write sacred texts or books resulting in major scientific breakthroughs; they were people playing hobby games who wrote documents enabling other hobbyists to do the same. The value of these documents lies in other people breathing life into them, and without this element of active play and participation, most are little more than pieces of 1970s pop culture.

[zarathustra]

If I look at the last few modules I ran (probably 70/30 to OSR) or used for inspiration & the versions of games I am currently playing then I am going with OSR.

[cadriel]

What exactly has the OSR done? Fight On! has produced some ok work, and as an active but minor contributor I don't want to diminish a project that I really enjoy, but we're only on the brink of 14 issues, and the quality is mixed just as in the early issues of The Dragon.

Probably my favorite OSR work is the Dungeon Alphabet, but as much as I like it I'd take the 1e DMG any day. I like Labyrinth Lord but if I wanted to play that style of D&D I would do it with Holmes and one of the expansions. I like Stonehell and Barrowmaze but since I'm not going to run somebody else's dungeon, I'd rather steal ideas from my collection of old TSR modules. I've liked a few of the "Advanced Adventures" modules and a couple others scattered here and there but the production quality and the quality control are lower than in the TSR modules. I dislike the majority of the clones and I'm honestly tired of new games that are basically D&D with a few things tweaked.

At the end of the day for me it's core rules, and OD&D is straight up better than any of the clones. I can make my own dungeons, I can make my own wilderness maps. The clones are all inferior imitations with other people's house rules. Some (like ACKS) might be OK supplements but I do not see them as games that I'd ever play.

So what exactly are people so psyched about that they're calling OSR better than TSR? I mean specific products, not just an approach or philosophical reasons.

[geoffrey]

Jul 20, 2012 7:02:44 GMT -6 cadriel said:

So what exactly are people so psyched about that they're calling OSR better than TSR? I mean specific products, not just an approach or philosophical reasons.

Of course, I write the sort of thing I like. That said, I love Isle of the Unknown and Carcosa. I prefer Isle of the Unknown to the World of Greyhawk folio. I prefer Carcosa to the Cthulhu Mythos section of Deities & Demigods.

James Raggi's Random Esoteric Creature Generator blows me away. I've never looked at monsters the same way since reading it. I used to love encyclopedias of monsters, but no longer. I much prefer the Random Esoteric Creature Generator to my favorite TSR monster book, the Fiend Folio. The Random Esoteric Creature Generator also outstrips Appendix D.

I prefer the One (or Two) Page Dungeon Level format to TSR's module format. It's neat that the One-Page Dungeon Level format (in its current incarnation) was developed right here on these message boards. Using a variant of this format, Michael Curtis outdoes B2: The Keep on the Borderlands with his Stonehell Dungeon.

I prefer Gabor Lux's Garden of al-Astorion to any TSR module.

I think the unquiet menace and uneasiness of James Raggi's Death Frost Doom are even better than Gary's Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun.

Vornheim by Zak S. outdistances any TSR city book.

I'd much rather have James Raggi's People of Pembrooktonshire than TSR's Rogues Gallery.

I like Rob Kuntz's Bottle City more than any TSR module, though I'm not sure if it is properly classified as OSR.

Fight On!'s "Darkness Beneath" megadungeon does more for me than any module published in Dragon or in Dungeon.

It does not surprise me that I think that the OSR is even better than the awesome TSR. TSR's cool products were written mostly by people in their 20s and early 30s who had been playing D&D for less than a decade. The OSR's cool products are written mostly by people who are in their 30s and 40s, and who have been playing D&D for two or three decades. I would be much disappointed if we, with our greater experience and decades of reflection upon D&D, could not do our TSR forebears the honor of improving upon what they created when they were younger and less experienced than we.

As Gary wrote at the end of the original D&D rules: "Why have us do any more of your imagining for you? Write to us and tell about your additions, ideas, and what have you. We could always do with a bit of improvement in our refereeing."

[tombowings]

TSR: I can find this stuff for a quarter in used bookstores. Generally OSR products are too much to justify purchasing right now.

[Deleted]

Geoffrey, I like your stuff but delurking just for this...

Jul 20, 2012 8:15:11 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

[TSR's cool products were written mostly by people in their 20s and early 30s who had been playing D&D for less than a decade. The OSR's cool products are written mostly by people who are in their 30s and 40s, and who have been playing D&D for two or three decades.

Last I checked, Gygax was in his early 40s in 1980. Steve Marsh and Rob Kuntz were quite a bit younger, but not really central to the "cool products." Elsewhere in the "revolution" Barker was in his early 50s, Bledsaw was in his late 30s and Arneson & Hargraves were among the relative babies at 33 and 34, respectively.

Are the OSR stalwarts really such eminences grises in comparison?

EDIT: And "less experienced than we?" Really?

[cadriel]

geoffrey:

I think we just differ on taste. Particularly with Raggi's material, I haven't really liked any of it since the Random Esoteric Creature Generator.

I haven't read Isle of the Unknown and Vornheim, but I would rather run in the Wilderlands of High Fantasy than in Carcosa. Nothing personal of course. And I'd rather run OD&D than any of the many permutations of Swords & Wizardry or the other clones. And if I had to pick a module off my shelf for a D&D game tonight, I'd certainly pick a TSR module long before an OSR module. So for me the OSR really hasn't offered enough.

[garham]

Jul 20, 2012 8:24:28 GMT -6 tombowings said:

TSR: I can find this stuff for a quarter in used bookstores. Generally OSR products are too much to justify purchasing right now.

You've got to show me where these bookstores are. In my area older RPG books average about 10$.

Incidentally, I voted OSR because there's so much of it available now (I don't see proliferation as a bad thing) and a very large proportion of it is available for free or at least in a free version. I can't argue with free.

[geoffrey]

Jul 20, 2012 8:35:26 GMT -6 @martinglass said:

Geoffrey, I like your stuff but delurking just for this...

Jul 20, 2012 8:15:11 GMT -6 geoffrey said:

[TSR's cool products were written mostly by people in their 20s and early 30s who had been playing D&D for less than a decade. The OSR's cool products are written mostly by people who are in their 30s and 40s, and who have been playing D&D for two or three decades.

Last I checked, Gygax was in his early 40s in 1980. Steve Marsh and Rob Kuntz were quite a bit younger, but not really central to the "cool products." Elsewhere in the "revolution" Barker was in his early 50s, Bledsaw was in his late 30s and Arneson & Hargraves were among the relative babies at 33 and 34, respectively.

Are the OSR stalwarts really such eminences grises in comparison?

EDIT: And "less experienced than we?" Really?

I consider the 1970s to be TSR's glory days. Here are the ages in 1974-1979 of the TSR luminaries I was thinking of:

Gary Gygax: 36-41
Dave Arneson: 27-32
Rob Kuntz: 19-24
James Ward: 23-28
Mike Carr: 23-28
Timothy Kask: 25-30
Brian Blume: 24-29

We basically have five 20-somethings, one guy about 30, and one guy in his late 30s/very early 40s.

In 1979, none of them could have been playing D&D for even a single decade.

We, however, tend to be in our 30s and 40s, and we tend to have been playing D&D for two or three decades.

On top of that, we have the TSR stuff given to us to learn from and reflect upon.

I am therefore not surprised that, in my estimation, the OSR is producing even better stuff than the awesome TSR stuff that came before. We have learned from the masters.

(I exclude M. A. R. Barker in this. His Tekumel stuff, IMO, is far beyond anything else from TSR or from the OSR.)

[kenmeister]

Personally, I think the most important choice you make when you step to the game table is the system. If you're running say AD&D, you should vote TSR. If you are running say BFRPG, you should vote OSR. I'm sure we can all find great modules from both eras, and since I can run Judges Guild stuff either way, I'd be good.

Now, I've thought an awful lot about switching to either an OSR system (like say C&C) or a TSR system augmented by the OSR (B/X + either companion). Jury's still out, but I'm not even playing at the moment so it doesn't matter.