Huge thank you to everyone posting in this thread!

Interesting thoughts all around. Keep it going!

Quote from: jeff37923;1093732I will not disagree with what you say, but when non-D&D games are mentioned there is a tendency for a significant number of OSR fans to claim that those games are "not real OSR", even though they demonstrate the do-it-yourself spirit and of the OSR and whose original source material was created within the OSR's timeframe. Case in point, Cepheus Engine as a Traveller retroclone.

It nuanced.

There is a group of RPG hobbyists who are interested in playing, promoting, and publishing for a classic edition of D&D.
There is a larger group of hobbyists who are interested in playing, pomoting, and publishing for older RPGs and older editions.

Some but not all in first group started the use the label Old School Renaissance around 2008 and 2009. This includes myself. My opinion it caught on not because it is Old School Renaissance but rather because of the initials OSR. A side effect of which are the different interpretations of what the R means. My take on it that the OSR (all caps) is about playing, promoting, and publishing for classic editions of D&D and that it takes place in the context of a larger osr that encompasses all older RPGs and older styles of play.

While there are those who label themselves as part of the OSR who are negative about anything not D&D, the more common case that I encountered is that OSR hobbyists are just as interested other RPGs as any other niche in the hobby. However what second interest varies a lot. For example I like and play GURPS and Harnmaster, I don't know to many other in the OSR that share those interests.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1093626Where has the OSR gone wrong?

Getting too wrapped up in sacred cows. Several gems hiding out there in the recasts and remakes... but the idea that the OSR just has to be a new take on D&D lends to its reputation as "fanatic grognard" territory.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1093626What's missing from the OSR that would make it better?

A shift from D&D to a focus on the play style of earlier games. Old School should embody simpler times, simpler methods and player ingenuity. Natural courses vs. engineered ones. Playing to see what happens vs. worrying about balance before even playing. A game should be OSR when the mechanics support the play style not as a measuring stick of how close or related it is to older versions of D&D. Grognards who don't particularly enjoy D&D but do enjoy the play style could find more options within the larger community.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1093626What changes would like to see to OSR "culture"?

More openness to the non-D&D takes on Old School. Overall less bickering. Aren't we too old to be bickering all the time?

Note: With all that I am absolutely not indicating there should be less D&D OSR. That would be bollocks.

I'm with Rob (Estar) that I don't see much downside to the movement as a movement.

Quote from: Chris24601;1093646I'd say the biggest issue that keeps me from being able to embrace it is the elements of its fanbase putting down any suggestions that aren't derived from the pre-2e game and any attempt to implement tools that would make it easier to run

For example, Encounter Budgets are of the Devil because how dare a GM be able to judge the difficulty of what they're throwing at the party by anything other than guesswork (and apparently being able to judge might cause a GM to not put what they originally wanted into their sandbox because they know it would cause a TPK).

Similarly that nothing really needs to be done to allow for particular genre emulation when it's Vancian casting, divine-siloed healing and magic item Christmas trees are found nowhere outside of materials derived from D&D. Or that any attempts to use anything but Tolkeinesque races is badwrongfun.

In short... from my experience with it the OSR has a disproportionately high concentration of "One True Way" fans and those make anything less fun.

Are these attitudes because that's what the designers of the games you have seen want? Or are they really trying to gate keep.

In theory, I wouldn't have an issue with presenting encounter budget mechanics (one of the first systems to quantify encounter difficulty was Don Turnbull's Monster Mark system in the early issues of White Dwarf) if it is used as a guideline ("how difficult should the average encounter be on the 1st level of the dungeon"), so it helps the GM distribute encounters in the dungeon (or wilderness). The issue I have is when it becomes an expectation that "we will only have encounters that fit within the parameters of the encounter budget for the number and level of PCs we have.").

Frank

I have only purchased 2 OSR games myself, but I have watched reviews of several, several others; and I've watched some of those reviews 3 or 4 times each.  I have also considered purchasing those games.

It seems like to make a big splash; you either have to closely emulate something people already love, or have a fantastic spinoff of a classic rule set.  Anything in between has trouble standing out in the crowd.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1093626I unabashedly love OSR stuff, and I enjoy lots about the OSR community as a whole. However, any design movement, advertising platform or mindless cult of zombies has its downsides as well and I'm cool with discussing the positives and negatives.

So, let's talk about the downside of the OSR.

Where has the OSR gone wrong?

What's missing from the OSR that would make it better?

What changes would like to see to OSR "culture"?

Of course, many people will say there's no organized OSR and that's right, but I think we can agree there is a general design ethos, some level of general agreement among OSR fans and something akin to a OSR community online.

And with something as loose as the OSR, its quite possible that for every downside we mention, someone else will point out that a certain OSR publisher addressed that issue.

So...fight on!

OSR is limited to just 1st-gen adventure gaming. Many still prefer that game style. OSR is almost like what pulp was in the '30s. Readers today still like pulp. It's just a style is all. Not quite a niche yet. But not an over-reaching style either in the hobby.

Quote from: trechriron;1093739Getting too wrapped up in sacred cows. Several gems hiding out there in the recasts and remakes... but the idea that the OSR just has to be a new take on D&D lends to its reputation as "fanatic grognard" territory.



A shift from D&D to a focus on the play style of earlier games. Old School should embody simpler times, simpler methods and player ingenuity. Natural courses vs. engineered ones. Playing to see what happens vs. worrying about balance before even playing. A game should be OSR when the mechanics support the play style not as a measuring stick of how close or related it is to older versions of D&D. Grognards who don't particularly enjoy D&D but do enjoy the play style could find more options within the larger community.



More openness to the non-D&D takes on Old School. Overall less bickering. Aren't we too old to be bickering all the time?

Note: With all that I am absolutely not indicating there should be less D&D OSR. That would be bollocks.

Agreed on all counts, this pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1093749OSR is limited to just 1st-gen adventure gaming. Many still prefer that game style. OSR is almost like what pulp was in the '30s. Readers today still like pulp. It's just a style is all. Not quite a niche yet. But not an over-reaching style either in the hobby.

I differ as the author of the Majestic Wilderlands and Scourge of the Demon Wolf

Quote from: estar;1093723I did answer with a universal nope, why? Because the OSR is far more fragmented than people realize or talk about. Other than the use of classic D&D mechanics, everything else has to be characterized as "it depends on who you are talking about".

The reason for this fragmentation is because of open content and digital technology, people can do most project within the time they have for a hobby. Which leads to a kaleidoscope of people using classic D&D mechanics and hybrids each with their own reasons.

You listed as downside "That many gamers want a sense of community even more than a rule set to use in play" Where that is true? OK, I know groups where that the focus. I know others mostly smaller groups where that not the case. Even the social groups are not easily pegged as to what they are about.

Is that true of myself? I know for me while I will participate on forums, and help out various efforts, I avoid being a leader of anything definitely something that caters to people looking for a social scene. I had enough of that managing a LARP chapter for several years.

It know that true of others in the OSR. But I also know many OSR authors doing their own thing and rarely participate on social media and don't bother with trying to foster a social scene.

For example what Jeff says here

 

I have two comments with this opinion
There are OSR authors, companies, and groups that concentrate on other system than D&D. For example Dan Proctor and Pacesetter games. Barrel Rider Games and White Star. Much of what Kevin Crawford does.

There are OSR authors who concentrate only on D&D mechanic. So his statement is true for some. And it reasonable to me that what they share and sell comes off as stagnant for Jeff. The OSR has grown to the point where it also reasonable that those individuals are the only OSR authors that Jeff are aware of.


 

You described the situation what are the implications?  My opinion that there are none except for specific individuals who are either promoting, sharing, or selling something. In which case it would make thing harder if the group moved on the next game.

Rob - this is beginning to feel like if I have anything to say about the OSR, I have to endure your continuing an old argument with Dungeon Delver with me as a proxy.  I'm not talking about an obligation for the OSR to stick to original D&D, that there should be some comic book-style standards committee, or the virtues of preventing people from using portions of your text, here.  And yet I get a repaste of your K&KA rebuttals every time I post about the OSR here, even if I'm not talking about those things.  

Perhaps restating it would be better: the OSR started as a movement to put butts in seats.  Get people playing.  Shout out your game session.  

parallel to this, the movement also went from rules everyone already had, to rules you could get that you couldn't get before.  

Did the old OSR movement's use of TSR rules help push a focus towards play?  Probably. From lack of alternative original content yet, if nothing else.

Would changing focus to new games using old rules templates, or primarily "inspirational" products, necessarily push away a play focus?  No.  And yet, the play focus has diminished.  Pull up the old TARGA boards if you don't think there was a difference in tone.  This has nothing to do with old spats.

I don't see anything different about the OSR today than any other RPG scene outside of the inevitable mechanical preferences.  We used to talk about how so many other splinters of RPGers were overly focused on new products and not regular play.  I now see very little difference between the OSR and any other RPG scene except perhaps a flavor preference for the early design principles at a 50,000 foot level.  We're perfectly happy selling products to people useful mainly for reading, just like every other RPG scene.

Tonight I pulled up the social media feeds of a few OSR games to look at the first 50 posts showing.  Many of them didn't have a single consumer of the game talking about play.

Lots of posts touting product
some posts touting minor new content and the associated patreons or blogs of non-author contributors
some posts with youtube play sessions designed for secondary passive consumption, and monetization of that consumption
A fair number of  generic "I love this game" posts

No community built around play.  And nobody trying to get games going, not even online games.

NOTE: none of the above listed post types are bad, wrong, immoral, or anything else.  I don't think they should go away.  I'm noting that we've evolved into your bog-standard RPG scene - a constant "edition" conveyor belt, plus a lot of inspirational products.  It just feels like somewhere along the way the OSR went quasi-corporate.  

Noism's recent blog post at http://monstersandmanuals.blogspot.com/2019/06/bad-reviews-bad-moods-and-bad-games.html to me illustrates the divergence.  I just can't imagine this being written in 2009.

QuoteThere is a certain school of thought, of which many RPG bloggers and online commenters are members, which holds that the superior way to review a game or gaming product is through play. "Ah," these people will pipe up whenever a review is posted, "But how does it work in play? How is it at the table?"

I know what they mean. What they want to make clear is that it's all very well for a book or product to read well and look good. But these things are made to be played, and in the final analysis it is how they work at the table, under fire as it were, that really matters.

I respectfully disagree with this view. Partly this is because I have never run anything I have bought as is, and can never really imagine how anybody would; I can only really imagine somebody buying an adventure or module and pulling out bits here, removing bits there, switching X around with Y and Z with A, or perhaps just going away inspired to do their own vague pastiche of the contents. Given that every reader is going to use the product differently, then, I'm never sure what value a review of how something works in play has beyond the individual reviewer.

I don't have an alternate plan, and don't think one is required to discuss something.  But to me, if the OSR goes down the road of edition treadmills and inspirational fluff that doesn't play at the table, and instead is designed for a pleasing reading experience with inspiration for your own stuff coming out somewhere on the other side...wasn't that what reading non-game stuff was for, at 1/3 of the price (or less)?  

Like I said, none of these elements individually are wrong - everyone wants cool new stuff to buy, and to consume RPG ephemera  - but "the pages are the product, using them in play is a happy bonus" seems very 1992 instead of 1978.

Fantastic, insightful post EOTB. Thanks for that.

QuoteThere is a certain school of thought, of which many RPG bloggers and online commenters are members, which holds that the superior way to review a game or gaming product is through play. "Ah," these people will pipe up whenever a review is posted, "But how does it work in play? How is it at the table?"

I know what they mean. What they want to make clear is that it's all very well for a book or product to read well and look good. But these things are made to be played, and in the final analysis it is how they work at the table, under fire as it were, that really matters.

I respectfully disagree with this view. Partly this is because I have never run anything I have bought as is, and can never really imagine how anybody would; I can only really imagine somebody buying an adventure or module and pulling out bits here, removing bits there, switching X around with Y and Z with A, or perhaps just going away inspired to do their own vague pastiche of the contents. Given that every reader is going to use the product differently, then, I'm never sure what value a review of how something works in play has b

Quote from: jeff37923;1093732I will not disagree with what you say, but when non-D&D games are mentioned there is a tendency for a significant number of OSR fans to claim that those games are "not real OSR", even though they demonstrate the do-it-yourself spirit and of the OSR and whose original source material was created within the OSR's timeframe. Case in point, Cepheus Engine as a Traveller retroclone.

   Hmm...the OSR creator I follow most closely is Daniel James Hanley. Is his stuff real OSR, not real OSR, or so far removed that he's not even on the radar?

Quote from: Aglondir;1093713You can see why they created feats in 3E: to give the non-Magic classes new stuff when they leveled up. It's a good idea, but where did it go wrong?  Sometimes I think the sweet spot would be "3E minus" rather than "OSR system + new stuff."

4e D&D perfected the ideals behind 3e. It just turned out that people actually wanted to play GURPS and only really cared about character customization or never cared for 3e and couldn't stand the power curve 4e assumed.
DCCRPG and SWN do a good job of giving players widgets, but most OSR games will see a limited number of campaigns per table.


QUOTE=Aglondir;1093713]Add level limits for non-humans to the list. Add the wonky ability score mod progression (3E got it right with Ability - 10 /2.)  Add every class having a different XP table.

How much can you "fix" an OSR game before you've left the OSR?[/QUOTE]

I would argue the wonky ability score progression is essential. The 3e-5e method makes rolling for stats overly painful with way too large an ability modifier swing. If you roll bad the character isn't just bad, it's useless.

I can appreciate some of the older design decisions.

Quote from: Aglondir;1093713You can see why they created feats in 3E: to give the non-Magic classes new stuff when they leveled up. It's a good idea, but where did it go wrong?

IMO, making feats interact with each other in complicated ways and turning the whole thing into a complex optimization minigame. If they had just been a bunch of individual widgets for building the base classes into novel "subclasses" (sort of like the unofficial NPC classes that regularly appeared in Dragon magazine during the 1e era) it would probably have been fine.

Quote from: EOTB;1093757Rob - this is beginning to feel like if I have anything to say about the OSR, I have to endure your continuing an old argument with Dungeon Delver with me as a proxy.  I'm not talking about an obligation for the OSR to stick to original D&D, that there should be some comic book-style standards committee, or the virtues of preventing people from using portions of your text, here.  And yet I get a repaste of your K&KA rebuttals every time I post about the OSR here, even if I'm not talking about those things.

I understand that. What I am trying to do is illustrate the role of individual choices in explaining why the OSR is what it is. I apologize if my examples make you feel like I am retreading old arguments. For our discussion I will try to come up with different examples.
 

Quote from: EOTB;1093757Perhaps restating it would be better: the OSR started as a movement to put butts in seats.  Get people playing.  Shout out your game session. parallel to this, the movement also went from rules everyone already had, to rules you could get that you couldn't get before.

I disagree, from the moment Basic Fantasy, and OSRIC was introduced several distinct approaches and attitudes appeared. Many of them predate the release of those two works. This included the accusation that there were those focused on selling products to people useful mainly for reading, just like every other RPG scene in your words.

Quote from: EOTB;1093757I don't see anything different about the OSR today than any other RPG scene outside of the inevitable mechanical preferences.  We used to talk about how so many other splinters of RPGers were overly focused on new products and not regular play.  I now see very little difference between the OSR and any other RPG scene except perhaps a flavor preference for the early design principles at a 50,000 foot level.  We're perfectly happy selling products to people useful mainly for reading, just like every other RPG scene.

For illustration what I think the differences are I am going to call a focus on getting games going painting with the color blue. I will call a focus on new products and passive particpation painting with the color Red.  And use a bunch of other colors as standins for other approaches taken by those using the OSR label.

My opinion is that the difference between the OSR of 2019 versus the OSR of 2009 is as follows
That in 2009 we had say 100 hobbyists active.

Maybe 5 were painting Blue
40 were painting Red
The remaining 55 were divided among the other colors.

That now in 2019 we have a 1,000 hobbyists active.

Except now there are 400 painting Blue
There are now 300 painting Red
And the remaining 300 are divided among a bewildering array of colors including many that are mixed in from other palletes (i.e. other RPG systems or genres).

My proportions are likely off. But even if there 800 people painting blue, there are still more people in 2019 trying to get people butts in seats today than there were in 2019. And there are more hobbyists playing older games in 2019 than there were in 2009.

The changes in the economics of RPGs and their legal situation means that it doesn't matter how many are painting blue. Those who are interested in painting red will still find places to paint and obtain their favorite color. And this is true of every color that been used under the label OSR. The OSR of 2019 has more numbers and variety in every category that existed in 2009 and new ones that were added since.

It came up recently in Knight and Knaves complaints about the variety for AD&D 1st edition. When I did my own survey of various sites including DriveThruRPG, there was a lot more than the last time I looked and in greater variety. So in absolute terms AD&D 1st/OSRIC has prospered. It just hasn't prospered as much as other categories have.

Which again the point I am trying to make about your comment. There are still many focused on getting people to play, to put seats into chairs. That their numbers have increased but the those who are in the hobby to find something to read or be part of a social scene has also seen dramatic growth.

Quote from: EOTB;1093757Tonight I pulled up the social media feeds of a few OSR games to look at the first 50 posts showing.  Many of them didn't have a single consumer of the game talking about play.

Lots of posts touting product
some posts touting minor new content and the associated patreons or blogs of non-author contributors
some posts with youtube play sessions designed for secondary passive consumption, and monetization of that consumption
A fair number of  generic "I love this game" posts

No community built around play.  And nobody trying to get games going, not even online games.

OK so how this materially impacts what you do in the hobby? Are you having trouble finding material that caters to your interest? Do have trouble finding people to talk with? To play with?

Are saying that material and dicussion that was present in 2009 are no longer to be found.

Quote from: EOTB;1093757NOTE: none of the above listed post types are bad, wrong, immoral, or anything else.  I don't think they should go away.  I'm noting that we've evolved into your bog-standard RPG scene - a constant "edition" conveyor belt, plus a lot of inspirational products.  It just feels like somewhere along the way the OSR went quasi-corporate.

My point is that the OSR of 2009 still exists today and thriving by any measure you care to put forth. Hower it just a subset of a much larger 2019 group.

The part where I disagree with your observation.

Quote from: EOTB;1093757Tonight I pulled up the social media feeds of a few OSR games to look at the first 50 posts showing.  Many of them didn't have a single consumer of the game talking about play.

... (A lot of points that factually accurate)...

No community built around play.  And nobody trying to get games going, not even online games.

This is over simplifying human behavior. For example I know several individual who label themselves as part of the OSR, whose social media fits the above to a tee, and yet are very active in playing and recruiting people to play either on-line, face to face, or at convention.

For my part while my blogging has dropped off. I am doing more complicated projects that demand more of my hobby time, however I plan things so I can still particpate in or referee in two to three session a week. I also have recruited five individuals to play in two different groups. For both I ran the Majestic Wilderlands, for one I ran Classic Traveller.

From talking other individual who label themselve as part of the OSR I don' think my experience is unique.

What I do think that with the demise of Google Plus and the rise of video, and voice, it gotten a lot harder to get a sense of what really going on compared to 2009. As in 2009 the on-line discourse primarily took place on blogs and forums. Now is split between social media sites, blogs, forums, podcasts, formal chats, and informal chats.

Across all of these I run into the same range of attitudes and interest as I found in 2009. It just take more work and poking around to find these. But when I find certain sites and areas it like it 2009 again. When I find others it very much 2019.

Quote from: EOTB;1093757Noism's recent blog post at http://monstersandmanuals.blogspot.com/2019/06/bad-reviews-bad-moods-and-bad-games.html to me illustrates the divergence.  I just can't imagine this being written in 2009.

I can but at some point the only way to resolve this is for somebody to do a study of some sort. So we just going to have to agree to disagre.

Quote from: EOTB;1093757I don't have an alternate plan, and don't think one is required to discuss something.  But to me, if the OSR goes down the road of edition treadmills and inspirational fluff that doesn't play at the table, and instead is designed for a pleasing reading experience with inspiration for your own stuff coming out somewhere on the other side...wasn't that what reading non-game stuff was for, at 1/3 of the price (or less)?

Still not getting what the issue. I am not clear where the problem is for you. You say you don't have problem with people wanting a social scene or reading material out of the hobby and yet you write the above with the omininous sounding "If the OSR does down the road." I am probably missing some naunce to what you are saying.

For me if all an individual wants out of the RPG hobby is reading material then so be it. As long as I get to make what I want, run what I want, and find places to play the way I like I don't have a problem with that. If that starts to interfere with any of those three, then I will have a problem with that.

The way I can ensure that will never be a problem is by encouraging the release of open content* and explaining how to leverage digital technology. The rest will sort itself out.

*To be clear, I encourage the release of open content for all RPGs. I think it sucks that the fans of D&D 4th edition don't have open content to fall back on continue supporting the game they like. And RPGs made in the spirit of 4th edition like 13th Age count as much as Castles & Crusades did for fans of AD&D 1st edition. Which is yeah that nice but not the game I want to play and support.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1093776I would argue the wonky ability score progression is essential. The 3e-5e method makes rolling for stats overly painful with way too large an ability modifier swing. If you roll bad the character isn't just bad, it's useless.

I've never been a fan of rolling for ability scores, period. It's great for disposable characters where you don't particularly care what you play, but if you're building a PC you plan to be playing for awhile I think the order of operations is a bit backwards.

My physical strength isn't fantastic. I'd say I'm no better than a 9 at best. But that's because my job involves a mix of computer design work and a bit of light woodworking and the most I typically have to lug is a 60 lb. sack of grain for our horses unless one of my friends is moving again and I'm helping move furniture up and/or down stairs.

But if I was bound and determined to get in shape; if I started hitting a gym, maybe got a trainer; I'm pretty sure I could get myself to a 16 inside of a year (and probably an 18 if I were still in my prime). Similarly, you can train to improve your Endurance, your hand-eye coordination/reflexes, your memory and observational skills. You can even learn to be more assertive and how to win friends and influence people.

The point is; the idea that a PCs ability scores would be static and independent of your life choices instead of honed by their profession of choice feels extremely counter-intuitive to me. My life experience is that the successes in any field are independent of raw talent, but is a result of determination to succeed (raw talent makes it easier to get the fundamentals down, but in the long run it's the commitment to keep at it that really matters).

So in terms of game design it makes sense to me that a PC would pick their class (and/or background) first and then determine their ability scores based on the degree of effort they're putting into things (i.e. a point-buy or prioritizing via an array).

If you wanted to randomize it a bit, have the starting scores for the point buy be 1d4+6 instead of 8 and value point buy on points added instead of the final score... so instead of a 12 score (8+4) costing X points, a +4 to your base costs X points.