I've generally mostly played the current edition of D&D, whatever it is--from AD&D back in the early 80s to 5E in recent years--so never really dived deep into the OSR, beyond a peripheral awareness of what came out. But for a variety of reasons, my curiosity has recently been piqued. I've been doing a bit of research, but thought I'd evoke the erudition of the grognards here: What is the current state of the OSR (to the degree that it can be envisioned as a distinct movement/group of games)? Which games have separated themselves from the pack and which are dead and gone? How much did the overall positive reception of 5E effect the OSR? Etc. Pretty much any relevant meta-discussion of the OSR is what I'm looking for.
And, in your view, which is the "best" of the OSR games and products? Which is your favorite and why?
For reference, I've included a list of some of the major OSR releases. I've taken liberties by adding a few borderline cases, or those that have an "old school feel" but aren't properly retro-clones of previous editions of D&D, like Forbidden Lands and Conan. Thus "OSR+." But it is my thread, so whatever.
Anyhow, I partially include these non-OSR old school games because I think the timeline illustrates the view that not much new is coming out in recent years; most old schoolish games released in the last half decade or more aren't actually retro-clones, but diverge a bit.
That said, the big retro-clones still seem to have solid fan-bases, perhaps culminating in Hyperborea (which is one of the ones I hope to pick up, at least when the new revised printing is out in 2021), which in my limited knowledge almost seems like the crown jewel of the OSR. Some publishers are still churning out books, while others are relegated to a small group of diehards.
So, commence discussion...
OSR+ Major Releases (Partial List)
2001 Hackmaster
2004 Castles & Crusades
2006 OSRIC; Basic Fantasy
2007 Labyrinth Lord
2009 Swords & Wizardry; Lamentation of the Flame Princess; Barbarians of Lemuria
2010 Dark Dungeons
2011 Mazes & Perils
2012 For Gold & Glory; Dungeon Crawl Classics; Adventurer, Conquerer, King
2013 Blueholme; Dungeon World; OD&D Deluxe (reprint of 1974 box); Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea
2017 Zweihander; Conan: Adventures in an Age Undreamed Of; Lion & Dragon
2018 Forbidden Lands
2020 Old School Essentials
Does Sine Publishing count as OSR?
If so I feel like they are the gosh darn best at it. To me at least, its a best of both worlds type deal.
Two great games that are OSR inspired:
Sharp Words & Sinister Spells
Solar Blades & Cosmic Spells
I suspect Sine Nomine's Worlds Without Number will be 2020's big OSR event.
RPGPundit's Lion & Dragon should be in a list of OSR notables because he went all-in on putting the medieval back into fantasy RPGing. And he says he bought a house on the proceeds so apparently it sold well.
https://www.amazon.com/Lion-Dragon-Medieval-Authentic-Roleplaying/dp/197958091X (https://www.amazon.com/Lion-Dragon-Medieval-Authentic-Roleplaying/dp/197958091X)
Old School Essentials seems to be the most popular OSR product right now, as it is a direct clone of D&D B/X, and B/X seems to overall be the most popular set of rules for OSR material.
I really have to disagree about the Modiphius Conan having an old school feel. It's very heavily based on metacurrency (Doom) spending by players and GMs. That's not something that is found in old school games. The world of Conan might still feel old school (classic swords & sorcery), but the game does not. Still, if the OP wants to include it, it's his thread.
Dungeon World isn't OSR. It is apocalypse world story game. Zwhielder isn't OSR either as it uses gimicy story game mechanic. Both games are also made by SJWs who hate the OSR.
Now you do need to point out Pundit's work in Arrows of India and Lion & Dragon. You also need to check out Old School Essentials. Last you need to read the entire line up of Sine Nomine books which are some of the most promising aspects of the OSR.
OSE fans, post a thread about OSE and explain what makes OSE "better" than Labyrinth Lord or other retro-clone.
Against The Darkmaster can be considered a retro-clone too from what I can gather. Officially released this year.
I'm a late bloomer when it comes to drinking the OSR Kool-Aid. I've also never played the first few editions of D&D and have no attachment whatsoever to the system or IP, though I've followed as much as I can of the different editions, variations, clones and adjacent games.
That said, my fave Dungeon Crawl Classics. I went from knowing the game exists, to playing, buying half a shelf of books and starting a campaign in just a couple of months. Nowadays, skimming the rulesets of "original clones", they all seem lackluster and bland in comparison. And the literal Appendix-N connection of DCC is what really gives it a depth and meaning which are somewhat lost in all these years of D&D pastiches of D&D pastiches of D&D pastiches.
Now that said, what I'd really like to see in the OSR (i.e. what is missing right now) is more complete and literary inspired content, like DCC and Hyperborea. These days there seem to be two clearly defined roads to success - either go with another b/x clone or dive into the art-punk-DIY-zine weirdness (Troika, Ultraviolet Grasslands*, Mork Borg). The latter I admire, but I'm waiting for all the circlejerk to end and more hefty books and support be delivered, not just ideas and pretty scribbles on booklets and napkins.
EDIT: * Meant to say Electric Bastionland.
Quote from: Mercurius on October 04, 2020, 06:26:52 PM
OSR+ Major Releases (Partial List)
2001 Hackmaster
2004 Castles & Crusades
2006 OSRIC; Basic Fantasy
2007 Labyrinth Lord
2009 Swords & Wizardry; Lamentation of the Flame Princess; Barbarians of Lemuria
2010 Dark Dungeons
2011 Mazes & Perils
2012 For Gold & Glory; Dungeon Crawl Classics
2013 Blueholme; Dungeon World; OD&D Deluxe (reprint of 1974 box); Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea
2017 Zweihander; Conan: Adventures in an Age Undreamed Of
2018 Forbidden Lands
HackMaster 4th edition and Castles and Crusades both predate the OSR.
HackMaster 4th is a mix of AD&D 1st and 2nd ed with every house rule you used and many you probably would have liked all crammed together. It is surprisingly a very good game once you get past the bombastic language in the book since it was written "in character" (if you read Knights of the Dinner Table you'll know what to expect for the author's opinion of other games and such). Even though Kenzer Co does not have the license for AD&D anymore a new group has started putting out material for the game with a plan to release a new version down the road - https://arghive.net/ (they also have a facebook and discord)
I have a love/hate deal with C&C.
For Gold and Glory is a pretty accurate repackage of AD&D 2nd edition - I just wish there was more then the single book.
Zweihander - I followed this closely when it first started development and was discussed back on the hold Strike to Stun forum and I backed it when it went up on kickstarter. I started lose faith in the product when the creature in charge went on his "aggressive" promotion run. What I got was not the game originally advertised on StS, and after it came out the he not only played all kinds of games about being a victim while lashing out at and doxing people but also started actively asking for suggestions from the "SJW" types on how to improve the game.
I think the two systems with the most constant release of adventures are Swords and Wizardry and DCC. DCC is a 3.5 system written, more modern than others on the list you made. S&W has a constant flow of content being released via crowd funding.
There's also Basic Fantasy RPG which along with many adventures and supplements is completely free.
https://www.basicfantasy.org/
Or can be purchased at cost price from Amazon.
Quote from: lordmalachdrim on October 05, 2020, 07:19:23 AM
For Gold and Glory is a pretty accurate repackage of AD&D 2nd edition - I just wish there was more then the single book.
There are a handful of supplements out there on DriveThruRPG and Lulu; look for The Hawk Wolf Network and Mad Martian Games on DTRPG.
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 05, 2020, 02:05:49 AM
OSE fans, post a thread about OSE and explain what makes OSE "better" than Labyrinth Lord or other retro-clone.
I'll just post a reply here, no need for a new thread...OSE is nothing more than a literal rebranding/repackaging of B/X. It is a 100% direct clone, with the "most logical" rules interpretations explained where B/X might have been unclear. That's it. I have all the hardcovers and the softcover BX Essentials and use them exclusively as a supplement for B/X games I run. There is ZERO reason to get OSE if you already have B/X unless you want an easy reference. It is super easy to print out a single sheet character reference (front and back) to give each player they can refer to without opening the book. Treasures and monsters are also easier to find than the two books. Otherwise, there is no point to the books other than they look nice. The actual D&D flavor is severely lacking, as is typical with these sorts of things.
That said, Advanced Labyrinth Lord might be a better game, honestly, because it doesn't try to shoehorn AD&D stuff into B/X, totally unlike the advanced books for OSE. ALL is a hybrid game, B/X in spirit but with enough elements of AD&D already baked in that adding stuff like monks and assassins comes naturally. Adding that stuff to OSE doesn't feel as clean. While I really like the concept quite a bit, I do not find the advanced OSE stuff all that intriguing or useful, and to me it's a failed attempt to AD&D-ify B/X, something that has already been done a million times by everyone one of us, probably. If I want AD&D, I will play AD&D. ALL is like AD&D-lite if you're lazy, and Castles and Crusades is AD&D for drunkards like me.
I am sure someone will be happy to dispute my position...
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 05, 2020, 02:05:49 AM
OSE fans, post a thread about OSE and explain what makes OSE "better" than Labyrinth Lord or other retro-clone.
The main praise for OSE is how good the layout is and how easy it is to use as a refrence, and i do personally like the layout a lot.
Where would you put Talislanta on that list? It was developed and deployed in multiple systems in 2018-2019.
Quote from: zircher on October 05, 2020, 12:19:30 PM
Where would you put Talislanta on that list? It was developed and deployed in multiple systems in 2018-2019.
I don't really see it as OSR or even "OSR adjacent." Sure, it harkens back to sword & sorcery and the science fantasy of the 70s, but not only is it distinctly different from D&D, it has its own history going back to the 80s. Also, it isn't based upon the D&D system in any way, except for the fact it uses d20s.
Quote from: TimothyWestwind on October 05, 2020, 08:41:45 AM
There's also Basic Fantasy RPG which along with many adventures and supplements is completely free.
https://www.basicfantasy.org/
Or can be purchased at cost price from Amazon.
It is already on my list: 2006. One of the early ones.
Quote from: lordmalachdrim on October 05, 2020, 07:19:23 AM
Quote from: Mercurius on October 04, 2020, 06:26:52 PM
OSR+ Major Releases (Partial List)
2001 Hackmaster
2004 Castles & Crusades
2006 OSRIC; Basic Fantasy
2007 Labyrinth Lord
2009 Swords & Wizardry; Lamentation of the Flame Princess; Barbarians of Lemuria
2010 Dark Dungeons
2011 Mazes & Perils
2012 For Gold & Glory; Dungeon Crawl Classics
2013 Blueholme; Dungeon World; OD&D Deluxe (reprint of 1974 box); Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea
2017 Zweihander; Conan: Adventures in an Age Undreamed Of
2018 Forbidden Lands
HackMaster 4th edition and Castles and Crusades both predate the OSR.
Yeah, I know - but they are both related to the OSR movement, even inspiring it. I see it as important to note with even a sparse timeline, for context and roots.
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 04, 2020, 08:11:05 PM
RPGPundit's Lion & Dragon should be in a list of OSR notables because he went all-in on putting the medieval back into fantasy RPGing. And he says he bought a house on the proceeds so apparently it sold well.
https://www.amazon.com/Lion-Dragon-Medieval-Authentic-Roleplaying/dp/197958091X (https://www.amazon.com/Lion-Dragon-Medieval-Authentic-Roleplaying/dp/197958091X)
Yeah, I suppose at least to honor the Pundit. On the other hand, does this game have much exposure beyond this site? I honestly don't know. I tried to include only "major" OSR games. This isn't a knock on the Pundit, as "major/minor" has nothing to do with quality - just popularity and influence.
Quote from: Mercurius on October 05, 2020, 01:32:26 PM
Yeah, I know - but they are both related to the OSR movement, even inspiring it. I see it as important to note with even a sparse timeline, for context and roots.
Castles & Crusade more so than Hackmaster 4e which was its own thing.
Discontent over C&C directly led to OSRIC and Basic Fantasy.
Keep in mind that the OSR is just as much about DiYers as it is about classic editions. Which is why OSRIC and Basic Fantasy mark the beginning as the "hack"* they used with the D20 SRD was so straightforward that it opened the floodgate to not only clones but various types of supplement products. It also helped that neither were not issued a cease & desist by Wizards of the Coast. Not that it would have stopped either OSRIC and Basic Fantasy but a C&D would have had a chilling effect.
I know folks like the rope in RPGs with old school spirit even if they are not targeted at one of the classic edition. I don't have an issue with that but the core of makes the OSR what it is the DiY attitude. So those things that effect the OSR the most are those things that helps move that along either by contributing content or serving as a guide for how to achieve similar projects.
*If you take the D20 SRD and omit the newer mechanics and additions what left is a hop and a skip from various classic editions of D&D.
Quote from: Myrdin Potter on October 05, 2020, 07:55:29 AM
DCC is a 3.5 system written, more modern than others on the list you made.
What? DCC is isn't even close to D&D 3.5.
For me ACKS feels more oldschool than half of the titles on that list; it's a direct extension of B/X but very much its own thing.
Quote from: estar on October 05, 2020, 01:56:23 PM
Quote from: Mercurius on October 05, 2020, 01:32:26 PM
Yeah, I know - but they are both related to the OSR movement, even inspiring it. I see it as important to note with even a sparse timeline, for context and roots.
Castles & Crusade more so than Hackmaster 4e which was its own thing.
Discontent over C&C directly led to OSRIC and Basic Fantasy.
Keep in mind that the OSR is just as much about DiYers as it is about classic editions. Which is why OSRIC and Basic Fantasy mark the beginning as the "hack"* they used with the D20 SRD was so straightforward that it opened the floodgate to not only clones but various types of supplement products. It also helped that neither were not issued a cease & desist by Wizards of the Coast. Not that it would have stopped either OSRIC and Basic Fantasy but a C&D would have had a chilling effect.
I know folks like the rope in RPGs with old school spirit even if they are not targeted at one of the classic edition. I don't have an issue with that but the core of makes the OSR what it is the DiY attitude. So those things that effect the OSR the most are those things that helps move that along either by contributing content or serving as a guide for how to achieve similar projects.
*If you take the D20 SRD and omit the newer mechanics and additions what left is a hop and a skip from various classic editions of D&D.
Yes, good point. Maybe this is where we can differentiate between "OSR books" and "old school" approach or attitude. The DIY can be applied to any edition, and in fact 5E is more "old school" than 3E and 4E in that it emphasizes a more ad hoc approach.
I found this rather massive list, which stretches the bounds of what is considered OSR and a retro-clone. I guess 4E retro-clones are a thing now.
http://taxidermicowlbear.weebly.com/dd-retroclones.html
Quote from: Naburimannu on October 05, 2020, 02:03:51 PM
For me ACKS feels more oldschool than half of the titles on that list; it's a direct extension of B/X but very much its own thing.
I'll add it, as I think it qualifies as "major."
Quote from: Mercurius on October 05, 2020, 01:32:26 PM
Quote from: lordmalachdrim on October 05, 2020, 07:19:23 AM
HackMaster 4th edition and Castles and Crusades both predate the OSR.
Yeah, I know - but they are both related to the OSR movement, even inspiring it. I see it as important to note with even a sparse timeline, for context and roots.
Agreed, though I'd also put the SRD and the OGL on there, because they provided the foundation. And if you're including OD&D reprint, then the OD&D PDF re-release, and the premium editions of the AD&D core books also might deserve a note. Playing at the World was also a significant release, though not a rules set. And your 2011, 2017 and 2018 lines could be scratched without hurting your list at all.
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 05, 2020, 02:05:49 AM
OSE fans, post a thread about OSE and explain what makes OSE "better" than Labyrinth Lord or other retro-clone.
From my perspective it is very well organized and has a clean and tidy layout.
Is there another editon of Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea on the horizon?
Quote from: Sunsword on October 06, 2020, 02:08:26 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 05, 2020, 02:05:49 AM
OSE fans, post a thread about OSE and explain what makes OSE "better" than Labyrinth Lord or other retro-clone.
From my perspective it is very well organized and has a clean and tidy layout.
Is there another editon of Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea on the horizon?
I don't know if it is a new edition, but the 2nd edition is OOP and I read somewhere on their site that they're doing a new printing in 2021 that will have some extra frills - an index, I think. Not sure if there are any other changes, though.
I was going to pick up a copy but decided to wait for the new printing/edition.
Quote from: DocJones on October 05, 2020, 02:02:00 PM
What? DCC is isn't even close to D&D 3.5.
You didn't know that DCC is based off 3.5? Where do you think the saves come from?
Traveller.
Update on Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerers of Hyperborea, for those interested. I emailed with the writer/owner and he said that he is working on a new printing for the first half of next year. He isn't quite calling it a new "edition," but is unsure. It will have new cover art, an index, and he may split it into two volumes.
Also, he's working on a City State of Khromarium product and a megadungeon. Sounds terrific.
Quote from: Mercurius on October 07, 2020, 07:09:49 PM
Update on Astonishing Swordsmen and Sorcerers of Hyperborea, for those interested. I emailed with the writer/owner and he said that he is working on a new printing for the first half of next year. He isn't quite calling it a new "edition," but is unsure. It will have new cover art, an index, and he may split it into two volumes.
Also, he's working on a City State of Khromarium product and a megadungeon. Sounds terrific.
Very cool! Thanks for checking.
Quote from: Nerzenjäger on October 07, 2020, 08:24:38 AM
Quote from: DocJones on October 05, 2020, 02:02:00 PM
What? DCC is isn't even close to D&D 3.5.
You didn't know that DCC is based off 3.5? Where do you think the saves come from?
Yeah, it's 3.5 with race-as-class and universal d20+modifiers vs. difficulty class, and without skill points, feats, opportunity attacks, 5-foot steps, prestige classes, and multi-classing.
Actually, it feels closer to 3.0 plus the same things from above.
Quote from: YnasMidgard on October 08, 2020, 06:59:30 AM
Quote from: Nerzenjäger on October 07, 2020, 08:24:38 AM
Quote from: DocJones on October 05, 2020, 02:02:00 PM
What? DCC is isn't even close to D&D 3.5.
You didn't know that DCC is based off 3.5? Where do you think the saves come from?
Yeah, it's 3.5 with race-as-class and universal d20+modifiers vs. difficulty class, and without skill points, feats, opportunity attacks, 5-foot steps, prestige classes, and multi-classing.
Actually, it feels closer to 3.0 plus the same things from above.
Yes. Point stands. Basic Fantasy is another great example.
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on October 07, 2020, 08:31:49 AM
Traveller.
Not sure what this comment was in response to, but Traveller is a good counter example. Despite their being at least 7 version of that game, there is no equivalent to the OSR. People use products from all those versions interchangeably and there is no version purity tests (at least that I can see)
For me this just shows that the OSR isn't really needed nor is it helping.
Inside the OSR, people mostly play D&D
Outside the OSR, people mostly play D&D
Quote from: Mercurius on October 04, 2020, 06:26:52 PM
I've generally mostly played the current edition of D&D, whatever it is--from AD&D back in the early 80s to 5E in recent years--so never really dived deep into the OSR, beyond a peripheral awareness of what came out. But for a variety of reasons, my curiosity has recently been piqued. I've been doing a bit of research, but thought I'd evoke the erudition of the grognards here: What is the current state of the OSR (to the degree that it can be envisioned as a distinct movement/group of games)? Which games have separated themselves from the pack and which are dead and gone? How much did the overall positive reception of 5E effect the OSR? Etc. Pretty much any relevant meta-discussion of the OSR is what I'm looking for.
And, in your view, which is the "best" of the OSR games and products? Which is your favorite and why?
For reference, I've included a list of some of the major OSR releases. I've taken liberties by adding a few borderline cases, or those that have an "old school feel" but aren't properly retro-clones of previous editions of D&D, like Forbidden Lands and Conan. Thus "OSR+." But it is my thread, so whatever.
Anyhow, I partially include these non-OSR old school games because I think the timeline illustrates the view that not much new is coming out in recent years; most old schoolish games released in the last half decade or more aren't actually retro-clones, but diverge a bit.
That said, the big retro-clones still seem to have solid fan-bases, perhaps culminating in Hyperborea (which is one of the ones I hope to pick up, at least when the new revised printing is out in 2021), which in my limited knowledge almost seems like the crown jewel of the OSR. Some publishers are still churning out books, while others are relegated to a small group of diehards.
So, commence discussion...
OSR+ Major Releases (Partial List)
2001 Hackmaster
2004 Castles & Crusades
2006 OSRIC; Basic Fantasy
2007 Labyrinth Lord
2009 Swords & Wizardry; Lamentation of the Flame Princess; Barbarians of Lemuria
2010 Dark Dungeons
2011 Mazes & Perils
2012 For Gold & Glory; Dungeon Crawl Classics
2013 Blueholme; Dungeon World; OD&D Deluxe (reprint of 1974 box); Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea
2014 Adventurer, Conquerer, King
2017 Zweihander; Conan: Adventures in an Age Undreamed Of; Lion & Dragon
2018 Forbidden Lands
2020 Old School Essentials
Thanks for including ACKS. However, you've misplaced it in the timeline. ACKS was Kickstarted in 2011 and books shipped April 2012. It preceded ASS&H and DW to market by a year.
See crowdfunding campaign here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/autarch/adventurer-conqueror-king/posts/206605
Quote from: amacris on October 08, 2020, 08:53:52 PM
Thanks for including ACKS. However, you've misplaced it in the timeline. ACKS was Kickstarted in 2011 and books shipped April 2012. It preceded ASS&H and DW to market by a year.
See crowdfunding campaign here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/autarch/adventurer-conqueror-king/posts/206605
Fixed. I put it in 2012.
Quote from: Mercurius on October 08, 2020, 11:39:02 PM
Quote from: amacris on October 08, 2020, 08:53:52 PM
Thanks for including ACKS. However, you've misplaced it in the timeline. ACKS was Kickstarted in 2011 and books shipped April 2012. It preceded ASS&H and DW to market by a year.
See crowdfunding campaign here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/autarch/adventurer-conqueror-king/posts/206605
Fixed. I put it in 2012.
For what it's worth, the AS&SH 1E box sets from the KS that funded Jan 2012 shipped in summer 2012. My copy arrived July 30, 2012.
Quote from: Chainsaw on October 09, 2020, 07:26:27 AM
Quote from: Mercurius on October 08, 2020, 11:39:02 PM
Quote from: amacris on October 08, 2020, 08:53:52 PM
Thanks for including ACKS. However, you've misplaced it in the timeline. ACKS was Kickstarted in 2011 and books shipped April 2012. It preceded ASS&H and DW to market by a year.
See crowdfunding campaign here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/autarch/adventurer-conqueror-king/posts/206605
Fixed. I put it in 2012.
For what it's worth, the AS&SH 1E box sets from the KS that funded Jan 2012 shipped in summer 2012. My copy arrived July 30, 2012.
Man do I love that box set. One of my favorite RPG purchases so far.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 08, 2020, 03:37:23 PM
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on October 07, 2020, 08:31:49 AM
Traveller.
Not sure what this comment was in response to, but Traveller is a good counter example. Despite their being at least 7 version of that game, there is no equivalent to the OSR. People use products from all those versions interchangeably and there is no version purity tests (at least that I can see)
For me this just shows that the OSR isn't really needed nor is it helping.
Your statement about there not being a "Traveller OSR" is correct, but if your takeaway from that is that the OSR wasn't/isn't needed, then I guess you just don't really know the basics of why the OSR came to be in the first place.
After TSR was driven into the ground, it was bought and the D&D brand revived with the so-called "3rd edition" by WotC. 3E and subsequent editions, however, were a marked departure from earlier versions of the game. One way of describing the difference would be to say that they catered to and encouraged a different playstyle with different emphases and a different playing culture. Another way would be that WotC's editions were/are shit (with the note that 5E is arguably less shit than 3E/3.5/4E, not that it's saying much). To add insult to injury, WotC's marketing strategy and the online gaming culture cultivated on their forums and elsewhere in the "RPG mainstream" were downright hostile to players who preferred older editions of the game and their own distinctive style. Also, adventures and other material for older edition was not very interchangable with new shit edition stuff, neither in terms of rules nor in terms of playstyle and play assumptions. The OSR came into existence as a direct pushback against that hostility and the lack of availability of old-editions materials.
So when you say that the OSR is pointless, you're essentially stating that you'd be perfectly fine with fans of old editions and old-school playstyle not having a way to easily play (or, very importantly, commercially create material for) their preferred versions of the game. Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion, but if that what you honestly believe, then, speaking as a fan of old-school D&D,
fuck you.As for why Traveller, RuneQuest or any other RPG fans didn't have their own equivalent of or try to co-opt the OSR, it's because
they never needed to. AFAIK, they never had a decade when the only easily available editions of their game were the shit ones, so they didn't need to recreate the "good old versions" by their own hands. There are no revolutions where there are no problems.
QuoteInside the OSR, people mostly play D&D
Outside the OSR, people mostly play D&D
What you fail to see is that the D&D played inside the OSR and the D&D played outside the OSR are two completely different things.
Quote from: Premier on October 09, 2020, 05:17:58 PM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 08, 2020, 03:37:23 PM
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on October 07, 2020, 08:31:49 AM
Traveller.
Not sure what this comment was in response to, but Traveller is a good counter example. Despite their being at least 7 version of that game, there is no equivalent to the OSR. People use products from all those versions interchangeably and there is no version purity tests (at least that I can see)
For me this just shows that the OSR isn't really needed nor is it helping.
Your statement about there not being a "Traveller OSR" is correct, but if your takeaway from that is that the OSR wasn't/isn't needed, then I guess you just don't really know the basics of why the OSR came to be in the first place.
After TSR was driven into the ground, it was bought and the D&D brand revived with the so-called "3rd edition" by WotC. 3E and subsequent editions, however, were a marked departure from earlier versions of the game. One way of describing the difference would be to say that they catered to and encouraged a different playstyle with different emphases and a different playing culture. Another way would be that WotC's editions were/are shit (with the note that 5E is arguably less shit than 3E/3.5/4E, not that it's saying much). To add insult to injury, WotC's marketing strategy and the online gaming culture cultivated on their forums and elsewhere in the "RPG mainstream" were downright hostile to players who preferred older editions of the game and their own distinctive style. Also, adventures and other material for older edition was not very interchangable with new shit edition stuff, neither in terms of rules nor in terms of playstyle and play assumptions. The OSR came into existence as a direct pushback against that hostility and the lack of availability of old-editions materials.
So when you say that the OSR is pointless, you're essentially stating that you'd be perfectly fine with fans of old editions and old-school playstyle not having a way to easily play (or, very importantly, commercially create material for) their preferred versions of the game. Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion, but if that what you honestly believe, then, speaking as a fan of old-school D&D, fuck you.
As for why Traveller, RuneQuest or any other RPG fans didn't have their own equivalent of or try to co-opt the OSR, it's because they never needed to. AFAIK, they never had a decade when the only easily available editions of their game were the shit ones, so they didn't need to recreate the "good old versions" by their own hands. There are no revolutions where there are no problems.
QuoteInside the OSR, people mostly play D&D
Outside the OSR, people mostly play D&D
What you fail to see is that the D&D played inside the OSR and the D&D played outside the OSR are two completely different things.
Damn, that's a lot crap Hedgehobbit is apparently responsible for, for a guy who barely gave any reason for saying what he said. Way to show the lack of hostility of the OSR! What a loaded diatribe, LOL :o
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 09, 2020, 07:11:36 PMDamn, that's a lot crap Hedgehobbit is apparently responsible for, for a guy who barely gave any reason for saying what he said. Way to show the lack of hostility of the OSR! What a loaded diatribe, LOL :o
Quote the exact sentence where I said or implied that Hedgehobbit is "responsible for" anything.
Also, if someone tells you that something you like is pointless, especially when he does it, in your own words, "barely giving any reason for saying what he said", a perfunctory "fuck you" is not "hostility", it's the normal, reasonable reply.
Quote from: Premier on October 09, 2020, 05:17:58 PM
What you fail to see is that the D&D played inside the OSR and the D&D played outside the OSR are two completely different things.
Even accounting for the likelihood that your statement was intentionally exaggerated, this is not really true. D&D is played in a wide range of ways, and it isn't either/or (e.g. either old school or not). Many of us don't care about such labels and just play the game in a way that we find pleasing.
Quote from: Premier on October 09, 2020, 07:24:07 PM
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 09, 2020, 07:11:36 PMDamn, that's a lot crap Hedgehobbit is apparently responsible for, for a guy who barely gave any reason for saying what he said. Way to show the lack of hostility of the OSR! What a loaded diatribe, LOL :o
Quote the exact sentence where I said or implied that Hedgehobbit is "responsible for" anything.
Also, if someone tells you that something you like is pointless, especially when he does it, in your own words, "barely giving any reason for saying what he said", a perfunctory "fuck you" is not "hostility", it's the normal, reasonable reply.
First, you're couching your entire diatribe under a series of claims that are themselves debatable—inserting your opinions about WotC era editions of D&D (which have better task resolution than old D&D*) and making accusations about the "RPG Mainstream" being hostile to "players who preferred older editions of the game", which pretty much describes my ENITRE experience of the so-called D&D edition wars going back decades before 3e was even released (and usually coming from people OBSESSED with Basic D&D against anyone who played later editions, including AD&D, which have always being "shit" despite being more fleshed out than Basic D&D). And implying that old school players were somehow the victims of some type of persecution that necessitated a "direct pushback against that hostility", making it a loaded statement, which paints anyone on the other side of this discussion as some kind of monster in favor of persecuting people from playing the games they like.
*see how loaded statements work ;)
Quote from: Premier on October 09, 2020, 05:17:58 PM
After TSR was driven into the ground, it was bought and the D&D brand revived with the so-called "3rd edition" by WotC. 3E and subsequent editions, however, were a marked departure from earlier versions of the game. One way of describing the difference would be to say that they catered to and encouraged a different playstyle with different emphases and a different playing culture. Another way would be that WotC's editions were/are shit (with the note that 5E is arguably less shit than 3E/3.5/4E, not that it's saying much). To add insult to injury, WotC's marketing strategy and the online gaming culture cultivated on their forums and elsewhere in the "RPG mainstream" were downright hostile to players who preferred older editions of the game and their own distinctive style. Also, adventures and other material for older edition was not very interchangable with new shit edition stuff, neither in terms of rules nor in terms of playstyle and play assumptions. The OSR came into existence as a direct pushback against that hostility and the lack of availability of old-editions materials.
Then you claim that by Hedgehobbit merely saying that the OSR is pointless (which it kinda is, TBH. I mean, old D&D is SHIT :P) that he's somehow enabling this or stoping fans of old editions or old-school playstyles from having an "easy" way to play games, which are technically still available (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17171/DD-Rules-Cyclopedia-Basic).
Quote from: Premier on October 09, 2020, 05:17:58 PMSo when you say that the OSR is pointless, you're essentially stating that you'd be perfectly fine with fans of old editions and old-school playstyle not having a way to easily play (or, very importantly, commercially create material for) their preferred versions of the game. Of course, you're entitled to your own opinion, but if that what you honestly believe, then, speaking as a fan of old-school D&D, fuck you.
Quote from: Mercurius on October 09, 2020, 09:04:38 PM
Even accounting for the likelihood that your statement was intentionally exaggerated, this is not really true. D&D is played in a wide range of ways, and it isn't either/or (e.g. either old school or not). Many of us don't care about such labels and just play the game in a way that we find pleasing.
I think that's right. There's no OSR purity test, and eg popular new school GM-advice Youtuber Matt Colville advises a lot of old school techniques to newbie DMs. 5e D&D itself is all over the place and includes big chunks of old school design in with new school stuff - it very much lacks the kind of strong authorial voice seen in 4e D&D ("D&D is about killing horrible monsters, not traipsing through fairy rings interacting with the little people" "Long treks through ruined dwarven fortresses aren't fun. Skip to the fun") - it's all very 'you do you', and depending which bits you take from the 5e DMG it can be run in a very old school way.
Just my 0.02Cr here.....
Traveller has a retroclone if you squint and look at Cepheus Engine. Traveller didn't need an OSR retroclone because Mongoose Traveller 1st Edition went back to what was working for the game system, Classic Traveller, and made a few updates. Traveller needs Cepheus Engine now in the same way that D&D needed Pathfinder when WotC pulled the plug on D&D 3.5 and went D&D 4E, Cepheus Engine allows Traveller players to DiY without stepping on IP issues.
Quote from: Mercurius on October 09, 2020, 09:04:38 PM
Quote from: Premier on October 09, 2020, 05:17:58 PM
What you fail to see is that the D&D played inside the OSR and the D&D played outside the OSR are two completely different things.
Even accounting for the likelihood that your statement was intentionally exaggerated, this is not really true. D&D is played in a wide range of ways, and it isn't either/or (e.g. either old school or not). Many of us don't care about such labels and just play the game in a way that we find pleasing.
It's true that D&D can be played in various ways, and you're free not to care about labels, but I cannot agree with your assertion that "mainstream" or "modern" D&D and the OSR are not distinctly different. There's a reason why a lot of OSR players don't play WotC editions and why most mainstream players don't play AD&D. Sure, there are always outliers and shades of grey, but denying the existence of strong trends of differing preferences is either naive or dishonest. I mean, the OSR
exists. That in itself is proof enough that there's a demand for something that generally fits within the "D&D bin", but is nevertheless markedly different from WotC fare.
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 09, 2020, 11:26:35 PMFirst, you're couching your entire diatribe under a series of claims that are themselves debatable—inserting your opinions about WotC era editions of D&D (which have better task resolution than old D&D*) and making accusations about the "RPG Mainstream" being hostile to "players who preferred older editions of the game", which pretty much describes my ENITRE experience of the so-called D&D edition wars going back decades before 3e was even released (and usually coming from people OBSESSED with Basic D&D against anyone who played later editions, including AD&D, which have always being "shit" despite being more fleshed out than Basic D&D). And implying that old school players were somehow the victims of some type of persecution that necessitated a "direct pushback against that hostility", making it a loaded statement, which paints anyone on the other side of this discussion as some kind of monster in favor of persecuting people from playing the games they like.
This whole exchange started about whether or not the OSR is "pointless". But you're sniping at my tone of voice and trying to change the topic into "but edition wars also existed back then!", which are not topics I'm interested in discussing, at least not in this thread. So you know what? YOU WIN. You got me, I'm guilty as charged of using unusally strong and colourful language. You can let me be now, especially because you don't seem to be interested in discussing the
actual topic at hand, namely whether or not the OSR has a raison d'être, which Hedgehobbit claimed it does not.
QuoteThen you claim that by Hedgehobbit merely saying that the OSR is pointless (which it kinda is, TBH. I mean, old D&D is SHIT :P) that he's somehow enabling this or stoping fans of old editions or old-school playstyles from having an "easy" way to play games, which are technically still available (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17171/DD-Rules-Cyclopedia-Basic).
Please go back to that post and read it again, more carefully this time. I said that
IF Hedgehobbit honestly believes what he said,
THEN that's what he must necessarily mean by it. For all we know, it's quite possible he did
NOT, in fact, mean what he said, he might have been just speaking out of well-intentioned ignorance; in which case obviously don't fuck him. That's what the "if... then" sentence construction means, you know. :)
And also please check the timing of when WotC started making old editions avaialable either as pdfs or collectors' prints. They started doing it (IIRC several years)
after the OSR took off and proved that there was a not insignificant demand for the old stuff. Had there been no OSR, those old editions would not have seen the light of day again.
Quote from: Premier on October 10, 2020, 07:49:59 AM
And also please check the timing of when WotC started making old editions avaialable either as pdfs or collectors' prints. They started doing it (IIRC several years) after the OSR took off and proved that there was a not insignificant demand for the old stuff. Had there been no OSR, those old editions would not have seen the light of day again.
I think the OSR basically Achieved Final Victory around 2012 when WoTC republished AD&D etc, put all the old stuff up on drivethrurpg, and took a lot from pre-3e for their D&D Next. You could argue this means the post-2012 OSR has much less reason for existence now than it did in the 2008-12 golden age. But all the cool stuff now would not exist except for what was done back then. We stand today on the shoulders of giants - Finch, Marshall, Proctor, Gonnerman et al. :D
Quote from: S'monBut all the cool stuff now would not exist except for what was done back then. We stand today on the shoulders of giants - Finch, Marshall, Proctor, Gonnerman et al. :D
QFT, brother.
Quote from: Premier on October 10, 2020, 07:49:59 AM
Please go back to that post and read it again, more carefully this time. I said that IF Hedgehobbit honestly believes what he said, THEN that's what he must necessarily mean by it.
And this is where you miss the point of my post, which is that you're reducing everything to just two possibilities, which is that anyone who considers the OSR "pointless" MUST by default "necessarily" be an evil oppressor that's totally OK with the persecution of the poor inoffensive old school gamers, who have apparently never slung shit at other games or editions of D&D, or be a complete ignorant fucktard, as opposed to having their own objections to the OSR (maybe they just don't like old D&D and see it as silly, or don't like the constant purity testing, etc.).
Quote from: Premier on October 10, 2020, 07:49:59 AMAnd also please check the timing of when WotC started making old editions avaialable either as pdfs or collectors' prints. They started doing it (IIRC several years) after the OSR took off and proved that there was a not insignificant demand for the old stuff. Had there been no OSR, those old editions would not have seen the light of day again.
Yeah, Ima give you that one, since I knew that that was probably the case before I even posted that, but didn't bother to check out of laziness, plus I was about to go to sleep and didn't think it mattered much to the greater point regardless.
Quote from: S'mon on October 10, 2020, 08:54:08 AMI think the OSR basically Achieved Final Victory around 2012 when WoTC republished AD&D etc, put all the old stuff up on drivethrurpg, and took a lot from pre-3e for their D&D Next. You could argue this means the post-2012 OSR has much less reason for existence now than it did in the 2008-12 golden age. But all the cool stuff now would not exist except for what was done back then. We stand today on the shoulders of giants - Finch, Marshall, Proctor, Gonnerman et al. :D
That's certainly a way of looking at it, but it depends on one particular interpretation of what the OSR was/is. If you assume that OSR = retroclones, then yes, what you say is true.
Another perspective, however, is that the OSR
changed at the time, but it's still the OSR - only a different generation, or edition if you will. After the Victory of the Retroclones, the OSR turned towards experimenting with individual customisations of the fundamental language of D&D (the "this OSR system is how
I play D&D" stage), and then towards using that fundamental language to do new things D&D originally did not explore ("D&D but in space / horror / this weird thing / other kind of horror / whatever"). To me, these newer branches of the OSR are still OSR just as every edition of D&D
is D&D whether or not I like it. In this sense, the OSR might have won the battle it originally set out to fight, but then just found itself a new, worthy cause and plodded on.
Quote from: VisionStorm on October 10, 2020, 01:01:41 PMAnd this is where you miss the point of my post, which is that you're reducing everything to just two possibilities, which is that anyone who considers the OSR "pointless" MUST by default "necessarily" be an evil oppressor that's totally OK with the persecution of the poor inoffensive old school gamers, who have apparently never slung shit at other games or editions of D&D, or be a complete ignorant fucktard, as opposed to having their own objections to the OSR (maybe they just don't like old D&D and see it as silly, or don't like the constant purity testing, etc.).
Well, let's apply that argument to the case at hand. Hedgehobbit came into this thread, dropped "OSR isn't really needed nor is it helping" without any sort of explanation and never looked back.
You assert that I'm wrong and hostile and that Hedgehobbit "has his own objections to the OSR".
Well, he didn't explain his objections, so why should we assume they're reasonable, fair and thought-out?
Then you go on to give some potential examples of valid objections, and start with "maybe they just don't like old D&D and see it as silly". Do you see the problem? Claiming that something "isn't really needed" just because you personally don't like it and think is silly
is exactly the sort of unreasoning antagonism that I was talking about. Your very example of why you think HH might have said what he did supports my own assertion. In contrast, I think 3-4E are shit, but I never claimed they have no reason to exist or that people who like playing them shouldn't be able to do so.
Quote from: Premier on October 10, 2020, 07:29:23 PM
That's certainly a way of looking at it, but it depends on one particular interpretation of what the OSR was/is. If you assume that OSR = retroclones, then yes, what you say is true.
Another perspective, however, is that the OSR changed at the time, but it's still the OSR - only a different generation, or edition if you will. After the Victory of the Retroclones, the OSR turned towards experimenting with individual customisations of the fundamental language of D&D (the "this OSR system is how I play D&D" stage), and then towards using that fundamental language to do new things D&D originally did not explore ("D&D but in space / horror / this weird thing / other kind of horror / whatever"). To me, these newer branches of the OSR are still OSR just as every edition of D&D is D&D whether or not I like it. In this sense, the OSR might have won the battle it originally set out to fight, but then just found itself a new, worthy cause and plodded on.
I'd put that in the 'new cool stuff' category I mentioned.
Quote from: Premier on October 10, 2020, 07:49:59 AM
Quote from: Mercurius on October 09, 2020, 09:04:38 PM
Quote from: Premier on October 09, 2020, 05:17:58 PM
What you fail to see is that the D&D played inside the OSR and the D&D played outside the OSR are two completely different things.
Even accounting for the likelihood that your statement was intentionally exaggerated, this is not really true. D&D is played in a wide range of ways, and it isn't either/or (e.g. either old school or not). Many of us don't care about such labels and just play the game in a way that we find pleasing.
It's true that D&D can be played in various ways, and you're free not to care about labels, but I cannot agree with your assertion that "mainstream" or "modern" D&D and the OSR are not distinctly different. There's a reason why a lot of OSR players don't play WotC editions and why most mainstream players don't play AD&D. Sure, there are always outliers and shades of grey, but denying the existence of strong trends of differing preferences is either naive or dishonest. I mean, the OSR exists. That in itself is proof enough that there's a demand for something that generally fits within the "D&D bin", but is nevertheless markedly different from WotC fare.
It may be nitpicky, but there is a difference between your original "completely different" and your amended "distinctly different." I can agree with the latter, with the caveat that there's a lot of variability as to what constitutes "distinctly different."
I imagine that every OSR player has their own reasons for eschewing WotC D&D, but I imagine that a good portion of it isn't about the rules, but less tangible elements: presentation, style, vibe, culture, etc.
Tying in another point, when you say that the OSR attained victory in 2012, I think you can connect that to the publication of 5E in 2014, which while ultimately being a modern edition of D&D--closer to a streamlined version of 3E than one of the TSR editions--it did seem like the designers at WotC were cognizant of the desires of the OSR crowd, and folded in some of the old school elements more explicitly than in the past two editions. It tried to spread the umbrella as wide as possible (to what degree it was successful is a matter of opinion).
"Old school" gaming has been implicit in every edition of D&D, even 3E and 4E. It is just that by 4E, it was more hidden behind a very different system approach.
I would suggest that at the heart of the OSR isn't as much a hugely different approach to D&D than WotC, but a "peeling away" of some of the more modern ideas and approaches and going back to the roots of what D&D is, or started as. Meaning, WotC D&D is old school + some new stuff. The OSR is basically a statement of, "We don't need to the new stuff!"
This is why I see 1983, with the publication of Dragonlance and is meta-campaign, as the Day of Infamy or the Fall to the OSR folks. It represented a major departure from Gygaxian fantasy (thus 1974-82 could be considered the "Golden Age" of D&D). But Gygaxian and/or old school fantasy has never died, it has just been added to. We can see this in layers: Dragonlance and the meta-story in 1983, the many settings of 2E starting in the late 80s, and the modernization of the rules with 3E in 2000, not to mention the "video-gamification" of 4E in 2008.
So if you're going to talk about the victory of the OSR, I think it was felt in the "return to roots"--at least in a partial sense--that 5E represented, with its greater simplicity than the previous two editions, its re-emphasis on theater-of-mind, its three pillared approach, etc. Am I saying that 5E is part of the OSR? No. But I think it is more compatible with, more friendly to, old school sensibilities.
It's me that believes 5e represents the Victory (& thus partial irrelevance) of the OSR. I was in the pub tonight with some fellow grognards, lamenting a couple new-schoolers we know who take their D&D cues from Critical Role. But we all, Grognards and Critters, play primarily 5e D&D.
OK 5e is never going to pass any OSR purity test. But it fixes a ton of stuff from 3e and 4e that took D&D away from what we like about the game.
Quote from: S'mon on October 11, 2020, 04:22:47 PM
It's me that believes 5e represents the Victory (& thus partial irrelevance) of the OSR. I was in the pub tonight with some fellow grognards, lamenting a couple new-schoolers we know who take their D&D cues from Critical Role. But we all, Grognards and Critters, play primarily 5e D&D.
OK 5e is never going to pass any OSR purity test. But it fixes a ton of stuff from 3e and 4e that took D&D away from what we like about the game.
That sounds less like victory and more like being co-opted, at least to me--but I'm not a big fan of either WotC or the OSR.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on October 11, 2020, 04:50:19 PM
That sounds less like victory and more like being co-opted, at least to me--but I'm not a big fan of either WotC or the OSR.
A plague on all our houses, eh? ;D
Try playing some RPGs - you might like them! :D
Quote from: S'mon on October 11, 2020, 04:22:47 PM
It's me that believes 5e represents the Victory (& thus partial irrelevance) of the OSR. I was in the pub tonight with some fellow grognards, lamenting a couple new-schoolers we know who take their D&D cues from Critical Role. But we all, Grognards and Critters, play primarily 5e D&D.
OK 5e is never going to pass any OSR purity test. But it fixes a ton of stuff from 3e and 4e that took D&D away from what we like about the game.
My apologies, to you and Premier.
By the way, what is a "Critter?" A young 'un? I consider myself a Quasi-Grognard...I see it as some combination of younger grognard--started playing in the 80s or early 90s (I started in the early 80s)--and open to new editions. A true Grognard, in my opinion, started playing in the 70s, preferably with OD&D, and/or is anti-WotC.
I would say that 5E does a pretty good job combining the best of TSR and WotC D&D. In some ways it is what 3E "should" have been (ala C&C), streamlining and updating the hodge-podge of TSR D&D, but adding a few new bells and whistles that take the game a step forward.
On a side note, I made the comment on ENW that I found Critical Role irritating and got quite a back-lash.
Quote from: Mercurius on October 05, 2020, 01:29:29 PM
Quote from: zircher on October 05, 2020, 12:19:30 PM
Where would you put Talislanta on that list? It was developed and deployed in multiple systems in 2018-2019.
I don't really see it as OSR or even "OSR adjacent." Sure, it harkens back to sword & sorcery and the science fantasy of the 70s, but not only is it distinctly different from D&D, it has its own history going back to the 80s. Also, it isn't based upon the D&D system in any way, except for the fact it uses d20s.
Dungeons & Dragons, from the viewpoint of TARGA, the organization that kicked off the OSR, was just one facet of old style gaming. The idea back then was to get people playing older style games instead of just talking about them. Is Talislanta in? You bet! And Star Frontiers, Gamma World and games like Wizards' World. D&D was never meant to be the only focus. How do I know? I was a member of TARGA and participated on the conference calls, created the YahooGroup, and made blank fliers for people to download, fill out and post to announce their games. Your list is merely the tip of the iceberg.
Quote from: Mercurius on October 11, 2020, 05:33:49 PM
By the way, what is a "Critter?" A young 'un?
A fan of Critical Role. Don't have to be young - of the two we were discussing, one is in his twenties and the other in her late thirties AFAIK. But Critical Role shapes their view of what D&D is and should be.
We think it's not even Matt Mercer's GMing, more the actor-players and how they see their role in the game, the group, the game world and the 'story'.
Quote from: bat on October 11, 2020, 05:49:17 PM
Dungeons & Dragons, from the viewpoint of TARGA, the organization that kicked off the OSR
From what I recall it was more "The world (of OSR) is Chaos! TARGA shall bring it Order!" :D
I don't recall it ever being particularly popular, never mind central to the OSR. And it certainly didn't initiate the OSR. If anything it seemed, from the outside, to be more about putting a leash on it. Maybe that latter is a mistaken view. But if it was popular or central to the OSR I think I'd have seen some sign of that on the forums & blogs.
I am not going to argue anyone's viewpoints. I was a member of the conference calls initiated by Victor Raymond and designed the fliers. I do know that ALL older games were supported and nobody was the leader. It was always DIY. I left TARGA when Zak appeared and just help out a few publishers here and there.
Quote from: Mercurius on October 11, 2020, 05:33:49 PMOn a side note, I made the comment on ENW that I found Critical Role irritating and got quite a back-lash.
That's because there are a substantial number of posters at ENWorld who are more about D&D "lifestyle" than actually playing D&D. So much so that they view any attempt to discuss actual play, as opposed to watching actors fake-play on YouTube, as gatekeeping or some such. Critical Role allows them to participate in the cool, trendy part of the hobby without having to do any of the yucky stuff, like hanging out with nerds or learning rules or being told that their precious binary otherkin trans-drow just got eaten by an otyugh, because it doesn't care how special the character is supposed to be. So, yeah, the smooth-brains at ENWorld love them some CR...
Quote from: bat on October 11, 2020, 05:49:17 PM
Dungeons & Dragons, from the viewpoint of TARGA, the organization that kicked off the OSR, was just one facet of old style gaming. The idea back then was to get people playing older style games instead of just talking about them. Is Talislanta in? You bet! And Star Frontiers, Gamma World and games like Wizards' World. D&D was never meant to be the only focus. How do I know? I was a member of TARGA and participated on the conference calls, created the YahooGroup, and made blank fliers for people to download, fill out and post to announce their games. Your list is merely the tip of the iceberg.
The list is comprised of retro-clones, not all old style games - that would be endless. There is no retro-clone of older editions of Talislanta.
Quote from: S'mon on October 11, 2020, 09:38:22 PM
Quote from: Mercurius on October 11, 2020, 05:33:49 PM
By the way, what is a "Critter?" A young 'un?
A fan of Critical Role. Don't have to be young - of the two we were discussing, one is in his twenties and the other in her late thirties AFAIK. But Critical Role shapes their view of what D&D is and should be.
We think it's not even Matt Mercer's GMing, more the actor-players and how they see their role in the game, the group, the game world and the 'story'.
Ah, I see...don't know how I missed the obvious connection.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on October 11, 2020, 09:56:00 PM
Quote from: Mercurius on October 11, 2020, 05:33:49 PMOn a side note, I made the comment on ENW that I found Critical Role irritating and got quite a back-lash.
That's because there are a substantial number of posters at ENWorld who are more about D&D "lifestyle" than actually playing D&D. So much so that they view any attempt to discuss actual play, as opposed to watching actors fake-play on YouTube, as gatekeeping or some such. Critical Role allows them to participate in the cool, trendy part of the hobby without having to do any of the yucky stuff, like hanging out with nerds or learning rules or being told that their precious binary otherkin trans-drow just got eaten by an otyugh, because it doesn't care how special the character is supposed to be. So, yeah, the smooth-brains at ENWorld love them some CR...
To be fair to ENW, most of the regulars are 40+ years old, and thus lifelong gamers. They illustrate how many older and long-time players happily embrace WotC and CR, and whatever the current fad is around D&D and how it should be played. To each their own, I guess. Where I take issue is a virulent form of groupthink that is hostile towards any nuance or divergence from the One Right Way to Think. Whether it is finding CR not to one's taste or not being deeply offended by Oriental Adventures, it amounts to a kind of slavish adherence to a rather narrow ideological framework. But I'm probably preaching to the choir, here.
Quote from: S'mon on October 11, 2020, 09:42:23 PM
From what I recall it was more "The world (of OSR) is Chaos! TARGA shall bring it Order!" :D
I don't recall it ever being particularly popular, never mind central to the OSR. And it certainly didn't initiate the OSR. If anything it seemed, from the outside, to be more about putting a leash on it. Maybe that latter is a mistaken view. But if it was popular or central to the OSR I think I'd have seen some sign of that on the forums & blogs.
TARGA was founded as an organized marketing effort to promote the classic editions. To promote the classes edition and the work of the participating author via talking about through blogs, running games at conventions, etc.
It fell apart because some authors released products that other authors didn't want to be associated with. Namely Mckinney's Carcosa. But there was friction developing prior to that over minor differences of opinions over doing x versus y. In the end it wasn't needed because individual authors using the Internet proved to be more than sufficient.
Quote from: estar on October 12, 2020, 08:12:32 AM
Quote from: S'mon on October 11, 2020, 09:42:23 PM
From what I recall it was more "The world (of OSR) is Chaos! TARGA shall bring it Order!" :D
I don't recall it ever being particularly popular, never mind central to the OSR. And it certainly didn't initiate the OSR. If anything it seemed, from the outside, to be more about putting a leash on it. Maybe that latter is a mistaken view. But if it was popular or central to the OSR I think I'd have seen some sign of that on the forums & blogs.
TARGA was founded as an organized marketing effort to promote the classic editions. To promote the classes edition and the work of the participating author via talking about through blogs, running games at conventions, etc.
It fell apart because some authors released products that other authors didn't want to be associated with. Namely Mckinney's Carcosa. But there was friction developing prior to that over minor differences of opinions over doing x versus y. In the end it wasn't needed because individual authors using the Internet proved to be more than sufficient.
Thanks Rob.
Quote from: Premier on October 09, 2020, 05:17:58 PMThe OSR came into existence as a direct pushback against that hostility and the lack of availability of old-editions materials.
As someone who spend about as much time on ENWorld as Dragonsfoot back in the early 2000s, I can say that this statement isn't an accurate reflection of reality. Third Edition players on ENWorld were incredibly open to discussion about old school play. How else can you explain the huge success of Necromancer Games? The formation of the old school mindset occurred on ENWorld and the Necromancer forums years before the OSR came about.
Now, compare this with Dragonsfoot where you weren't even allowed to discuss 3e, even as it related to older versions.
The reason that I say that the OSR isn't helping is that people would still be playing old school D&D whether the OSR existed or not. And if you removed the tribalism of OSR vs "new school" players, you'd have seen even more cross pollination between the two groups. Just like you see with all other older games like Traveller, Runequest, CoC, Champions, etc. Traveller, for instance, has gone through far more radical changes than D&D ever did.
Somebody came along and said "Hey, OSR!" and suddenly there was an umbrella term for publishing old school D&D stuff. That's it.
I think Rob would agree, that there were already several machinations afoot beforehand, namely Necromancer Games, C&C, Hackmaster, etc. The Retroclones just popped the cherry.
Why use page-long fat statblocks, if we can use those that these modules were written for?
I actively post on Enworld and the moderation is pretty light handed. Posters have to be stepping over a pretty clear line before any red text shows up and there almost always are warnings, not banning. In terms of this thread, the site is pretty friendly to the OSR.
CR fans are quite loud, but that is everywhere. The mods step in when site rules are violated. They don't step in if someone disagrees with a poster that does not like CR. CR fans yell at each other more than anyone else.
I am not sure what other site posting policies have to do with the topic of this thread. If I went purely on posts on Enworld, I would say it has a small but loyal following there. Sort of like it in the market. A few stars and winners for Kickstarters and lots of small ones. Some product in the market, but the niche is much smaller than 5e which is sold at Walmart now.
I am not sure why it became about ENW's posting policies - that is not what I was referring to when I mentioned ENW. I was merely talking about the "Critters" and their defense of CR, not moderation.
If anything I'm pointing at the unfortunate tribalization within the D&D community, whether OSR folks or Critters. Maybe I'm looking at the past with rose-colored glasses, but the D&D community wasn't always so tribalized. We used to be united by our shared love of rolling dice, not arguments over who is playing real D&D or not. So I suppose you could accuse me of being an instant of my own complaint by complaining about Critters.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 12, 2020, 09:57:50 AM
Quote from: Premier on October 09, 2020, 05:17:58 PMThe OSR came into existence as a direct pushback against that hostility and the lack of availability of old-editions materials.
As someone who spend about as much time on ENWorld as Dragonsfoot back in the early 2000s, I can say that this statement isn't an accurate reflection of reality.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 12, 2020, 09:57:50 AM
The reason that I say that the OSR isn't helping is that people would still be playing old school D&D whether the OSR existed or not.
Yes but without the ability to publish or share material freely it puts a hard limits on what happens.
The reason why the release of OSRIC and Basic Fantasy marks the beginning of the OSR is because they illustrated a path for publishing and sharing free of many of the IP constrains that existed. Path easily used by anybody else willing to put the time and effort in.
The OSR certainly did not invent the idea of a fan made supplement/adventure. But by showing how such works can be commercialized, more people were now willing to put more time and more money into making material with better production quality. Even if it was just to share as opposed to sell.
Commercialization is not magical pixie dust sprinkled on to make everything better. Commercialization also mean that in-between projects were enabled. Instead everything having to be "wink-wink-dodge" semi-legal fanwork, now people can settle in at whatever level of investment they want to do. Knowing that their work isn't going to disappear with a cease and desist from Wizards.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 12, 2020, 09:57:50 AM
You'd have seen even more cross pollination between the two groups. Just like you see with all other older games like Traveller, Runequest, CoC, Champions, etc. Traveller, for instance, has gone through far more radical changes than D&D ever did.
What would have happened is all those systems would be stuck in the same "wink-wink I hope a C&D doesn't arrive" limbo. Hobbyist would have still done what they always done, most gravitating to a version of D&D and with the rest shaking out in order of their popularity they had back in the day. Provided that the parent IP holder is not a dick about fan made publication.
The OSR by its example showed how older RPGs can be revived provided certain preconditions are met. The most important one being the availability of open content.
Legends/Runequest/D100
This is an example of a community that did not evolve like the OSR despite the availability of open content. The main reason because D100 RPGs have dominant IP holder still actively publishing material, Chaosium. But wait it doesn't just have one active publisher, it has a second one as well, Design Mechanism which publishes Mythras. Both have recently published works that were well-received by D100 hobbyist.
There are hobbyists in the D100 community taking advantage of the open content like Openquest and Newt Newport. However with Chaosium actively discouraging the use of the Legends open content every chance they get, and Design Mechanism relatively open to contributions outside of the company. There not a lot of D100 hobbyist willing to go the extra mile to publish material.
Cepheus/Mongoose Traveller/Traveller
Traveller had two waves of open content, Traveller D20, and Mongoose Traveller 1e. Neither version formed a complete RPG like the D20 SRD or the Legends SRD for D100. In addition a significant portion of Traveller hobbyists were fans of the Third Imperium setting and viewed the system as a way of running campaigns in that setting. Finally Marc Miller, the IP holder, encouraged with limits fan made projects for various editions of Traveller.
The advent of Mongoose Traveller 1e saw for the first time a growing interest in Traveller as a system. Now only Mongoose marketed MgT1e this way, they encouraged other authors to put out Traveller compatible settings as well. As of a few years ago, there were a half-dozen small publishers regularly putting out material to support original settings.
During the change to Mongoose Traveller 2e, the 3PP license was bungled by Mongoose imperiling the IP of the publishers that grown under MgT1e. For the first time in Traveller's history the conditions were there for a open alternative. Jason Kemp stepped up to the plate and used content from the MgT1e SRD, the Traveller20 SRD, D20 Modern, etc to make Cepheus. All the third party publishers that used the MgT1e SRD swtiched over and started publishing using Cepheus. In the years sense the community sharing and publishing for Cepheus has been growing at a rapid clip.
Quote from: Mercurius on October 12, 2020, 12:32:04 PM
If anything I'm pointing at the unfortunate tribalization within the D&D community, whether OSR folks or Critters. Maybe I'm looking at the past with rose-colored glasses, but the D&D community wasn't always so tribalized. We used to be united by our shared love of rolling dice, not arguments over who is playing real D&D or not. So I suppose you could accuse me of being an instant of my own complaint by complaining about Critters.
Tribalism existed in RPGs very early. I can't number how many times I was told the style I prefer to play was some combination of "not REAL roleplaying"; "that's ROLL-playing"; or "dungeons are primitive, simplistic, and unrealistic. RPGs have moved beyond that"
Geeks are the most tribal creatures on earth to viewpoints not socially dominant within their sub-culture. Every fandom is like this. But hoo-boy, when out-of-favor views gain some traction and decline to make a hybrid tent for them, that is not-ok
Quote from: EOTB on October 13, 2020, 03:22:54 AM
Quote from: Mercurius on October 12, 2020, 12:32:04 PM
If anything I'm pointing at the unfortunate tribalization within the D&D community, whether OSR folks or Critters. Maybe I'm looking at the past with rose-colored glasses, but the D&D community wasn't always so tribalized. We used to be united by our shared love of rolling dice, not arguments over who is playing real D&D or not. So I suppose you could accuse me of being an instant of my own complaint by complaining about Critters.
Tribalism existed in RPGs very early. I can't number how many times I was told the style I prefer to play was some combination of "not REAL roleplaying"; "that's ROLL-playing"; or "dungeons are primitive, simplistic, and unrealistic. RPGs have moved beyond that"
Geeks are the most tribal creatures on earth to viewpoints not socially dominant within their sub-culture. Every fandom is like this. But hoo-boy, when out-of-favor views gain some traction and decline to make a hybrid tent for them, that is not-ok
Yeah, I can hear that, although it has been exacerbated of late, perhaps as a proxy battle in the "culture wars."
Just got another email that the Castles & Crusades PHB is still free: https://www.trolllord.com/tlgstore/
Quote from: EOTB on October 13, 2020, 03:22:54 AMTribalism existed in RPGs very early. I can't number how many times I was told the style I prefer to play was some combination of "not REAL roleplaying"; "that's ROLL-playing"; or "dungeons are primitive, simplistic, and unrealistic. RPGs have moved beyond that"
I distinctly remember bringing my brand new 3e PHB to the university game club - very much WOD Country - and flipping through looking at the art, when a black-clad, pale fellow with silver jewellery and a pentagram around the neck walks up to me, says "This game has no future", turns around, and walks away without a further word to lesser beings like "AD&D players". :D Hardcore, hardcore people.
That's how tribalism in the late 1990s looked like. WW was actively fanning the flames to profit from the divide, too.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 08, 2020, 03:37:23 PM
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on October 07, 2020, 08:31:49 AM
Traveller.
Not sure what this comment was in response to, but Traveller is a good counter example. Despite their being at least 7 version of that game, there is no equivalent to the OSR. People use products from all those versions interchangeably and there is no version purity tests (at least that I can see)
Classic Traveller, the original 1977 edition is considered the original edition. It differed significantly from the later 1981 edition, in that it did not feature a central campaign setting,
"The Imperium" but instead was more of a hard science based Space Opera / pulp Sci-Fi setting where one could create their own sector set at anytime and anywhere in the far future. The original rules included everything needed, for example, to make a Star Trek campaign, with matter transporters, phasers, photon torpedoes, and warp drives. Anything, for example Tech Level 15 or above, is right off the charts in terms of science fiction, and into the realms of science fantasy. Not many people chose to play Traveller that way though with such high tech levels.
It also featured a random jump-route generation system, which was very useful to create pocket space empires, or subsectors, and which was removed from the later editions of Traveller (1981+) that featured the pre-mapped Imperium including the other sophonts of the Solomani Sphere, The Hivers, The Vargyrs, The Aslan, the Droyne, and the Zhodani.
Original Traveller also did not have
Yellow or
Amber Zones, becuase there was no
Imperium, or vast Intergalactic government. It was up to the individual game referee to create their own far future setting, and include what they wanted in it. Of course, Just like with D&D, that all changed with the organized convention play of the late 70's and early 80's.
...and
Samardis Press produces the new open source original
Traveller clone,
The Cepheus Engine.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/186894/Cepheus-Engine-System-Reference-Document?affiliate_id=35844
Also, never considered Castles & Crusades as part of the OSR. The first set of rules for C&C was published in 2000 and was a variant of the 3rd Edition D&D rules, but did seem old school because the rules had streamlined much of the 3rd edition rules clutter, and greatly simplified character classes providing a fixed set of feats for each character class, and a skills resolution system based on the siege engine, where the character could pick half their attributes to provide specific skills bonuses which improved with every level that the character gained.
My actual current favorite set of OSR rules is Swords & Wizardry which is very much like original D&D, and would be my choice, Although I am looking to buy a copy of Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea next time I attend GaryCon.
Quote from: GameDaddy on October 16, 2020, 11:20:15 AM
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 08, 2020, 03:37:23 PM
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on October 07, 2020, 08:31:49 AM
Traveller.
Not sure what this comment was in response to, but Traveller is a good counter example. Despite their being at least 7 version of that game, there is no equivalent to the OSR. People use products from all those versions interchangeably and there is no version purity tests (at least that I can see)
Classic Traveller, the original 1977 edition is considered the original edition. It differed significantly from the later 1981 edition, in that it did not feature a central campaign setting, "The Imperium" but instead was more of a hard science based Space Opera / pulp Sci-Fi setting where one could create their own sector set at anytime and anywhere in the far future. The original rules included everything needed, for example, to make a Star Trek campaign, with matter transporters, phasers, photon torpedoes, and warp drives. Anything, for example Tech Level 15 or above, is right off the charts in terms of science fiction, and into the realms of science fantasy. Not many people chose to play Traveller that way though with such high tech levels.
It also featured a random jump-route generation system, which was very useful to create pocket space empires, or subsectors, and which was removed from the later editions of Traveller (1981+) that featured the pre-mapped Imperium including the other sophonts of the Solomani Sphere, The Hivers, The Vargyrs, The Aslan, the Droyne, and the Zhodani.
Original Traveller also did not have Yellow or Amber Zones, becuase there was no Imperium, or vast Intergalactic government. It was up to the individual game referee to create their own far future setting, and include what they wanted in it. Of course, Just like with D&D, that all changed with the organized convention play of the late 70's and early 80's.
...and Samardis Press produces the new open source original Traveller clone, The Cepheus Engine.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/186894/Cepheus-Engine-System-Reference-Document?affiliate_id=35844
Samardan Press
Quote from: GameDaddy on October 16, 2020, 12:00:35 PM
Also, never considered Castles & Crusades as part of the OSR. The first set of rules for C&C was published in 2000 and was a variant of the 3rd Edition D&D rules, but did seem old school because the rules had streamlined much of the 3rd edition rules clutter, and greatly simplified character classes providing a fixed set of feats for each character class, and a skills resolution system based on the siege engine, where the character could pick half their attributes to provide specific skills bonuses which improved with every level that the character gained.
It may not be an "official" OSR game (even though there is no clear definition of what an OSR game is, or at least the definition is flexible and subjective), but it is certainly related to it - just as Hackmaster is. My preferred way of looking at is that C&C and Hackmasters are antecedents to the OSR; they helped pave the way, although are not strictly retro-clones because they were adaptations of the then-current edition of the game.
If a game lets me crack open my giant 2e Montrous Manual (and Castles and Crusades does), then I'm happy to consider it OSR.
Quote from: Mercurius on October 16, 2020, 02:50:54 PM
It may not be an "official" OSR game (even though there is no clear definition of what an OSR game is, or at least the definition is flexible and subjective), but it is certainly related to it - just as Hackmaster is. My preferred way of looking at is that C&C and Hackmasters are antecedents to the OSR; they helped pave the way, although are not strictly retro-clones because they were adaptations of the then-current edition of the game.
HackMaster was based on AD&D and came out during 3e.
Castles & Crusades is absolutely OSR. It's AD&D 3e.
Maybe the most commercially successful OSR game too. Certainly the one I've seen on the most shelves in game stores, though DCC is a close second.
BTW, they have a new interesting Kickstarter happening.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ckg/castles-and-crusades-roads-to-adventure? (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ckg/castles-and-crusades-roads-to-adventure?)
Quote from: Mercurius on October 05, 2020, 01:34:10 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 04, 2020, 08:11:05 PM
RPGPundit's Lion & Dragon should be in a list of OSR notables because he went all-in on putting the medieval back into fantasy RPGing. And he says he bought a house on the proceeds so apparently it sold well.
https://www.amazon.com/Lion-Dragon-Medieval-Authentic-Roleplaying/dp/197958091X (https://www.amazon.com/Lion-Dragon-Medieval-Authentic-Roleplaying/dp/197958091X)
Yeah, I suppose at least to honor the Pundit. On the other hand, does this game have much exposure beyond this site? I honestly don't know. I tried to include only "major" OSR games. This isn't a knock on the Pundit, as "major/minor" has nothing to do with quality - just popularity and influence.
Based on the ongoing income, I'd say it's clearly got a reach beyond this site. Unless there's tons of people here buying a new copy every month or two for some reason.
Quote from: RPGPundit on October 24, 2020, 11:48:06 PM
Quote from: Mercurius on October 05, 2020, 01:34:10 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat on October 04, 2020, 08:11:05 PM
RPGPundit's Lion & Dragon should be in a list of OSR notables because he went all-in on putting the medieval back into fantasy RPGing. And he says he bought a house on the proceeds so apparently it sold well.
https://www.amazon.com/Lion-Dragon-Medieval-Authentic-Roleplaying/dp/197958091X (https://www.amazon.com/Lion-Dragon-Medieval-Authentic-Roleplaying/dp/197958091X)
Yeah, I suppose at least to honor the Pundit. On the other hand, does this game have much exposure beyond this site? I honestly don't know. I tried to include only "major" OSR games. This isn't a knock on the Pundit, as "major/minor" has nothing to do with quality - just popularity and influence.
Based on the ongoing income, I'd say it's clearly got a reach beyond this site. Unless there's tons of people here buying a new copy every month or two for some reason.
We've been found out!
Quote from: GameDaddy on October 16, 2020, 11:20:15 AMThe original rules included everything needed, for example, to make a Star Trek campaign, with matter transporters, phasers, photon torpedoes, and warp drives.
I have what I thought was the original edition of Traveller and I can't find any rules for transporters, phasers, or warp drives. The only weapons in my book are laser, missiles, and sand casters.