I personally don't need more atomization in gaming. I'm not sure if I'm an outlier - I love checking out new systems, new novel ways (that usually aren't so novel) to "skin the cat". Etc.

I'm not sure that having some sub-tribe of "types" of games to distinguish OSR vs. Non-OSR matters? If so why?

Quote from: tenbones;1097663I personally don't need more atomization in gaming. I'm not sure if I'm an outlier - I love checking out new systems, new novel ways (that usually aren't so novel) to "skin the cat". Etc.

Yes but what do you invest the majority of your time in and how well does that work transfer to system X? I am sure you find it easier for some and more difficult or irrelevant for others.

Make a diagram of that and some of the tribalism will make sense.

Quote from: tenbones;1097663I'm not sure that having some sub-tribe of "types" of games to distinguish OSR vs. Non-OSR matters? If so why?

How easily you think Gypsy Knght Games, a Cepheus/Traveller publisher, can produce a Swords & Wizardry Adventure, or a D&D 5th edition?

I suspect about as easily as I can produce or play a Runequest/Legends product. It can be done but I have to take time away from something else. At some point there only so many hours in the days. It not like I haven't done nothing with the system.

Nothing wrong or nefarious it just how it is once you go beyond a certain point with a hobby.  The key thing is not to get snotty about one's choices. I am not going to start criticizing Runequest because I don't have the time to spend writing or playing it. But unfortunately some people do.

Quote from: Omega;1097559We have enough game theft as is thanks to the OSR.

Its tradition now.  Gary stole the game from Dave.  Lorraine stole the game from Gary.  Peter stole the game from Lorraine.  Ryan stole the game from Peter and released it out in the world for everyone to use.

Quote from: Omega;1097559Please (insert your deity here) no.

We have enough game theft as is thanks to the OSR.

You mean copyright infringement?

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1097552...from a marketing point of view, do we need a "movement" label, acronym, whatchamacallit?
If so, may I suggest Old School Gaming?
...
What do you think?

I don't think such a movement/logo/label is needed (i.e., personally I don't think I'd find much/any value in it), but I also have no objection to someone trying to gain traction with the concept.

Quote from: estar;1097668Yes but what do you invest the majority of your time in and how well does that work transfer to system X? ...

I suspect about as easily as I can produce or play a Runequest/Legends product. It can be done but I have to take time away from something else. At some point there only so many hours in the days. It not like I haven't done nothing with the system.
...

From your 2010 Blog post:
"...I plan to do some work on what I call Majestic Quests a d20 version of Runequest % system. This session showed me some of the strengths and pitfalls of the original game...."

No doubt Majestic Quests a d20 is still on the shelf, but I'm interested in your thoughts of why you think a d20 a d20 version of Runequest % system would still be "Runequest".

I've gotten a bit of pushback on another thread for suggesting the idea that most players in the hobby would find a d20 roll under version of RQ to be "good enough".

Quote from: Jaeger;1097898I've gotten a bit of pushback on another thread for suggesting the idea that most players in the hobby would find a d20 roll under version of RQ to be "good enough".

  I thought we called that 'Pendragon'?

I for one, would love to see a few retro-clones of Shadowrun, any edition.

Quote from: estar;1097591Runequest has not made the same leap. Instead we have specific brands like Mythras, and Openquest. And not all of it based around the open content of Legends. Mythras uses a 3PP model like Savage Worlds.

Largely because Chaosium was successful retaining it leadership in the niche with Mythras a strong second.

Possibly also because Jeff spreads BS like this:

https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/9809-just-a-reminder-there-is-no-ogl-for-brp-rq-or-coc/

"Q: Can I rely on the Mongoose RQ SRD to publish material?

A: No. Mongoose’s license for RuneQuest was terminated in April 2011. At that point, Mongoose lost all rights to continue using the RuneQuest trademark, or to create and publish material derivative from the previous copywritten material, or to issue any sublicenses based on that agreement. Since Mongoose no longer had any rights to RuneQuest, it has no ability to issue a third-party license to that material (which is all an OGL is)."

Quote from: Vile;1097974Possibly also because Jeff spreads BS like this:

https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/9809-just-a-reminder-there-is-no-ogl-for-brp-rq-or-coc/

"Q: Can I rely on the Mongoose RQ SRD to publish material?

A: No. Mongoose's license for RuneQuest was terminated in April 2011. At that point, Mongoose lost all rights to continue using the RuneQuest trademark, or to create and publish material derivative from the previous copywritten material, or to issue any sublicenses based on that agreement. Since Mongoose no longer had any rights to RuneQuest, it has no ability to issue a third-party license to that material (which is all an OGL is)."

What Jeff Said

While BS, while there are issues with the first two Mongoose SRD incorporating a trademark as part of the text (the first) and part of the license (the second). However it rendered moot by the release of the entire text of the Legend RPG as open content under the OGL.

Something that when pointed out forced Jeff to state
https://basicroleplaying.org/topic/9809-just-a-reminder-there-is-no-ogl-for-brp-rq-or-coc/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-145867

Q: What about Mongoose's Legend?

A: Legend is its own thing and not under license from Chaosium or Moon Design Publications. Mongoose was perfectly entitled to take their work, remove from it those elements that were derived from RuneQuest or Glorantha and give it its own name, and then do with it as they see fit. Legend is not RuneQuest or BRP or Call of Cthulhu, and nor does it purport to be.

If Mongoose wants to do a OGL of their original work, that is not Chaosium's issue or concern.

Chaosium's Animosity

Next the Chaosium is saying right now is because of the announcement of OpenCthulhu. The whole Licensing FAQ wasn't put up until June 11.

https://www.yog-sothoth.com/forums/topic/33031-open-cthulhu-announcing-public-beta-release-of-open-cthulhu-srd/

And the FAQ does try to mix in some FUD in to make their case. Which is unfortunate in my opinion.

Deeper Issues

However the above has little to do with my point. I been following this for a better part of a decades and when it comes to fantasy nobody is challenging the use of Glorantha like OpenCthulhu is doing with Call of Cthulhu. Instead like the OSR the d100 mechanics are used to prevent general fantasy RPGs and used for original settings.

And not a lot of people taking advantage of this. The various SRDs been out for a few years so there are quite a few works out there and a lot of them are good. But there not a overall sense of movement forward except among specific publishers.

Compare this to Cepheus/Traveller which as of a three years ago was in a similar situation as Runequest/D100 RPGs. Worse even as none of the available open content formed a complete RPG in the way the various D100 SRD did. But thanks to the TAS debacle, Jason Kemp was spurred to do the hard work of assembling everything, writing some original content to cover the gaps, and release Cepheus. More important the existing 3PP community warmly received Jason's work, and it attracted new authors. So now on DriveThruRPG there 300+ products for Cepheus and it growing rapidly at a rate comparable to the early OSR.

But it certainly did not hurt that it has been accepted by Marc Miller and given its own section on the official Traveller RPG forums.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1097593I always figured that anything pre-1985 could be fodder for OSR stuff, but you don't see much(if any) of the non-D&D stuff because people just don't care enough. But they theoretically could. Otherwise, the name seems a bit of a misnomer to me. D&D is oldschool, but it's not all of oldschool. There's a lot there even in just the first decade, again if you care enough to look for it/crib from it.

Some people apparently care since:
Dan Proctor resurrected a number of games published by Pacesetter and Wizard's World.
Chaosium re-released RQ2
Gila Games re-modeled The Arcanum by Bard Games 2nd Edition as a 30th anniversary edition.
Precis Intermedia has brought back Supergame and Timeship.
....among others.

Do we need a movement? It has already begun and is moving along at a turtle's pace, but still not bad.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1097552What do you think?

At this point, no. That ship has already sailed. The time to have done so would have been when the OSR moniker was in its heyday. Now that OSR has become synonymous with older editions of D&D, this would look like a reactionary effort which casts as  much light on the D&D games as it does on the non-D&D games.

Quote from: Jaeger;1097898From your 2010 Blog post:
"...I plan to do some work on what I call Majestic Quests a d20 version of Runequest % system. This session showed me some of the strengths and pitfalls of the original game...."

No doubt Majestic Quests a d20 is still on the shelf, but I'm interested in your thoughts of why you think a d20 a d20 version of Runequest % system would still be "Runequest".

The math and the system design would be the same just with a d20 instead of d100. Just as OD&D is still OD&D even if you use ascending AC as long as the number reflect the odds of the chart in Men & Magic. However it been 9 years since I looked at it so undoubtly there was some element that would required tweaking and thus not mathematically the same. I think criticals would been a problem area.

Quote from: Jaeger;1097898I've gotten a bit of pushback on another thread for suggesting the idea that most players in the hobby would find a d20 roll under version of RQ to be "good enough".

The consequence of making a d20 Majestic Quest would have meant that I would have to grow the audience myself. It would have different enough to be off-putting to the existing Runequest fan base.

Yeah you can make the math work but it not all about the math their aesthetics as well. Which is why OSRIC was still developed even though Troll Lords did a good job making Castles & Crusades compatible with AD&D material.

I never pursued Majestic Quests because none of my groups was interested in Runequest using a d20 or d100. As it turned we wound up liking the AGE system better.

Idk, I think D&D deserves the OSR treatment the most because people keep making clones of the cool D&D games they remember playing rather than ones that ever actually existed.

Few other games abandon their history like D&D or had enough players that remember it fondly while not owning original books.

No, OSR as a D&D level / class based system makes sense even if the games are not entirely compatible. They generally still share more than similarities than differences.

Some sort of "Old School Gaming" to represent retro-clones of Runequest, HERO, GURPS, TFT, Tunnels and Trolls, Aftermath, Daredevils, Bushido, Twilight 2000, Traveller, Merc, Behind Enemy Lines, Stalking the Night Fantastic, Fringeworthy, Top Secret, Top Secret SI, James Bond, Powers and Perils, Rolemaster, Warhammer etc etc is pretty much meaningless.

There is simply no solid tie between these games beyond all having been developed in the period from the late 1970s to mid 1980s. What attracts a player to a HERO retroclone, may not appeal at all to a player of a James Bond or Traveller retroclone.