I was interested to see what people considered the core ideas or principles behind OSR. With new games coming out, I'd say it's significantly more than a nostalgia movement. Also, one could just choose to pare down character classes or ignore the redefining of orcs and what have you, so I don't think it's just those elements either. Just curious what people's thoughts were.

Keep the spirit of early RPG gaming alive.
AND.....
You can do whatever you want.

I'm not involved in OSR, except for a general feeling of approval for the movement, but I've thought of it very generally as games trying to recreate the feel and play of older RPG's, up to about 1991, and mainly D&D games, whilst using what's been learned in the time since to improve mechanics.  Details seem to vary greatly.

Quote from: Zaph on September 06, 2022, 12:12:49 AM
I was interested to see what people considered the core ideas or principles behind OSR.

Quote from: Jam The MFKeep the spirit of early RPG gaming alive.

I would be a little more specific in that I think the OSR is dedicated to recapturing the feel and play of Dungeons and Dragons specifically, especially in the first editions of either its Advanced or B/X iterations. This means it's going to include at least the basic six-characteristic structure, an XP-level advancement paradigm, combat based on the use of d20 to beat an Armor Class (whether doing the "subtract from THAC0" or ascending AC version), and a hit-point model for assessing character damage and defeat; it will almost certainly also include character classes as the favoured mode of niche protection, but this is not universal (The Invisible College is an OSR game but has no character classes per se).

On a more general basis, OSR game design tends to strongly resist the use of metacurrency and metagame player agency, with a heavy emphasis on the "Gamist" dimension of the "Game/Narrative/Simulation" paradigm and the "Fortune" aspect of the "Drama/Fortune/Karma" paradigm; the only effect the players can have on the gameworld or the game situation is through the actions of their characters, and the outcomes of those actions as determined by the system and by the GM's interpretation. Resource management, combination of dissimilar assets, and a good head to select optimal approaches in varying situations, judge odds and evaluate pace of decision are all critical elements to good performance in-game.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on September 06, 2022, 02:20:11 AM

Quote from: Zaph on September 06, 2022, 12:12:49 AM
I was interested to see what people considered the core ideas or principles behind OSR.

Quote from: Jam The MFKeep the spirit of early RPG gaming alive.

I would be a little more specific in that I think the OSR is dedicated to recapturing the feel and play of Dungeons and Dragons specifically, especially in the first editions of either its Advanced or B/X iterations. This means it's going to include at least the basic six-characteristic structure, an XP-level advancement paradigm, combat based on the use of d20 to beat an Armor Class (whether doing the "subtract from THAC0" or ascending AC version), and a hit-point model for assessing character damage and defeat; it will almost certainly also include character classes as the favoured mode of niche protection, but this is not universal (The Invisible College is an OSR game but has no character classes per se).

On a more general basis, OSR game design tends to strongly resists the use of metacurrency and metagame player agency, with a heavy emphasis on the "Gamist" dimension of the "Game/Narrative/Simulation" paradigm and the "Fortune" aspect of the "Drama/Fortune/Karma" paradigm; the only effect the players can have on the gameworld or the game situation is through the actions of their characters, and the outcomes of those actions as determined by the system and by the GM's interpretation. Resource management, combination of dissimilar assets, and a good head to select optimal approaches in varying situations, judge odds and evaluate pace of decision are all critical elements to good performance in-game.

Well, to me it is about early versions of D&D and AD&D.  But I know some people like to include some of the other early games, which were out before BX, for example; and I don't want to exclude fans of those other games.

Quote from: Zaph on September 06, 2022, 12:12:49 AM
I was interested to see what people considered the core ideas or principles behind OSR. With new games coming out, I'd say it's significantly more than a nostalgia movement. Also, one could just choose to pare down character classes or ignore the redefining of orcs and what have you, so I don't think it's just those elements either. Just curious what people's thoughts were.

The core idea, IMO anyway, is looking back at early games (especially pre-2nd edition AD&D) and giving "old" ideas a second look. Understanding why they used the rules they did. Ideas like encumbrance, xp for gp, level limits for demihumans, and the modes of play they used.
We had gotten to the point where it was a given that the "old" rules were not-fun, stupid, etc, new players may not have even known about them, and I think they deserved a fair second chance.

I have a very simple view in mind that can be a complicate explanation... I will try it in any case!

I have always considered the original idea of D&D the result of a nearly perfect mix between storytelling and wargaming. Then the way every dm approaches the game, this reflects whether he is more prone to the first aspect or to the second... This view can also be applied to the preferred rpg btw (and in this case we can have the neverending discussion between D&D and AD&D...).
The distinction brings to a consequence in game mechanics for each side: on the side of the "wargaming prevalent" game there is a need to develop a very detailed set of rules so that nearly every event is covered by a rule... This means the game designer needs to map a lot! (And he will never map the totalty!)
On the side of "storytelling prevalent" game there is the need to leave up to the GM the room to define as he prefers to lead the game everything but the main features of the game (i.e. the rules will cover combat, magic and few other things...). This is the so called "light rules" concept you find nowadays in some retroclones or similar... Well let me say that this is fool's gold as every rule not mapped in the game is a burden transferred from the game designer to the GM.

Based on this concept, the core idea of OSR is indeed try to follow one of these two "paths": the wargaming  is following the AD&D rules, the storytelling one is following the OD&D one...

I don't think its unfair to say that nostalgia is a significant force in the OSR. A lot of the biggest games in the genre aren't just based on a 40 year-old ruleset. They go out of their way to present themselves as if the book was published 40 years ago as well. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a fine thing to want to go back to an old way, when the new ways aren't very good.

That said, I would say that most of the most popular OSR games fall into three categories (with some overlap, of course):

1. Republications of old rulesets that have been cleaned up and reorganized (OSE, OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry, Gold & Glory)
2. Kit-bashes of what the author thinks are the best features of several editions (Castles & Crusades, DCC, Fantastic Heroes)
3. Games seeking to take an old edition of D&D and alter it's tone or setting (Hyperborea, Lamentations, Lion and Dragon)

Like I said plenty of games fit into multiple categories, but those seem to me to be the broad design trends in the OSR.

Then you also have the question of whether games applying the same DIY/back-to-basics approach to systems outside of D&D count as OSR. There's probably lots of examples, but the ones I know of are Warlock! which kind of gives the OSR treatment to Warhammer Fantasy RPG, and Against the Darkmaster which I have been told is setting out to do the same for MERP. (I've never played MERP, so I could be wrong about that.)

Quote from: Ratman_tf on September 06, 2022, 02:31:23 AM

Quote from: Zaph on September 06, 2022, 12:12:49 AM
I was interested to see what people considered the core ideas or principles behind OSR. With new games coming out, I'd say it's significantly more than a nostalgia movement. Also, one could just choose to pare down character classes or ignore the redefining of orcs and what have you, so I don't think it's just those elements either. Just curious what people's thoughts were.

The core idea, IMO anyway, is looking back at early games (especially pre-2nd edition AD&D) and giving "old" ideas a second look. Understanding why they used the rules they did. Ideas like encumbrance, xp for gp, level limits for demihumans, and the modes of play they used.
We had gotten to the point where it was a given that the "old" rules were not-fun, stupid, etc, new players may not have even known about them, and I think they deserved a fair second chance.

Especially if that "fair second chance" is willing to admit that some of the old rules really are still "not-fun, stupid, etc,." and feels comfortable dumping them. Those that blindly clone without doing so get no respect from me.

I would hope, too, that if there was a winning innovation, such as rolling with advantage/disadvantage (I've read that was a 4E innovation?), it could be adapted it it made the overall game better.

Nostalgia.

Worlds Without number dumps a ton of garbage and adapts hood rules developed later after 0d&d but its not poo pooed because its laid out like old school stuff.

Without getting into the whole "What is OSR?" debate, I think some of the key features are:

- Creativity. Players need to think their way out of (or into) situations rather than abstracting things with a die roll. Dice are mainly used to determine failure, not measure success.
- Combat is deadly. Being a stupid murderhobo can easily get you killed. There are very few "second chances" once you get a sword run through your gut.
- Lateral progression. Classes/characters tend to get most of their abilities up front, then simply get better at them as they advance. There's not a lot of "get a shiny new ability at each level."

It is a return to recreating the feel of TSR (not WotC) D&D, while opening new directions along those lines, staying truthful to the TSR feel.

This kinda does a pretty good job showing the differences between the intent of OSR and how it compares to more modern games:  https://archive.org/details/a-quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/A%20Quick%20Primer%20for%20Old%20School%20Gaming/

Quote from: Brooding Paladin on September 06, 2022, 07:11:38 PM
This kinda does a pretty good job showing the differences between the intent of OSR and how it compares to more modern games:  https://archive.org/details/a-quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/A%20Quick%20Primer%20for%20Old%20School%20Gaming/

Interesting pdfs. Although I think their representation of old school gaming is overgeneralized. For example, skills and NWPs and skill checks were already a thing with both BECMI/RC D&D and 2ndEd, many years before the "modern RPGs" of the 2000s+ (e.g. 3e) came out. Game balance was also important, even in these older games (they just used other systems other than CR). The arguments for "old school gaming" in these pdfs seem to better describe AD&D 1e (and maybe white Box OD&D).