Genuinely curious how others define this magical movement.

What 3-5 things define OSR in your eyes?

To my uninitiated eyes it seems to fall into two camps;

1. Clones of the original D&D games.
2. Standing on the shoulders of those games to try and do something a little original.

I've asked a similar question before but the answer was....nebulous and off point.

Indie projects based on the D&D engine. Seems pretty simple to me.

Have to say naming yourself a 'Renaissance' is mighty pretentious and smug. And people shit on Zak and WW for pretension?

Quote from: Voros;966627Indie projects based on the D&D engine. Seems pretty simple to me.

Have to say naming yourself a 'Renaissance' is mighty pretentious and smug. And people shit on Zak and WW for pretension?

lol I think it's the renaissance part that always gets my back up. I'm liking the look of a couple of things but I struggle with OSR when I already own everything printed for D&D.

Here's my take.

1) AD&D revival movement
2) Publishing your house ruled interpretation of a TSR D&D edition using the OGL
3) Publishing dungeons / settings / supplements for TSR era D&D
4) Jabbering about TSR era stuff
5) Reviving interest in other early RPGs

Revival might have been a better word at OSR's start, but Renaissance is a fine word for what the OSR has become. There is now so much variety and different avenues of design from people who have engaged with the OSR that Renaissance works. But none of it would have existed without the early dudes working on retroclones.

I think it's just an appreciation that classic games don't just become bad games because newer game ideas come along.

Someone once pointed out that the OSR has three general "waves". The first wave was strict retroclones - games designed to be practically identical to earlier, out-of-print versions of D&D. This had a two-fold purpose: to allow people to play ersatz AD&D 1st ed. (or what have you) without actually owning an old copy or a pirate pdf; and to allow people to write and commercially sell adventures and other material for these games, by saying that e.g. it's a commercial product for OSRIC, rather than for AD&D 1st ed. (the latter of which you arguably couldn't do legally). Examples include OSRIC, Swords&Wizardry, G.O.R.E., For Gold & Glory.

The second wave was/is games based on some flavour of old-school D&D or other, but with the author's personal touches and changes; "D&D my way", if you will.

The third wave is about using the fundamental ruleset of D&D and exploring new themes and ideas with it. Examples include Sine Nomine games ("D&D but sci-fi", "D&D but Call of Cthulhu-like", etc.) or White Lies ("OD&D but spy movies").

From the POV of the OSR people, it was a revival/rediscovery of a lost art, a lost way of doing things. These are mostly people who started in the 1990s with metaplot heavy railroad RPGing, or in the 2000s with insanely crunch-heavy 3e D&D, and looked for a better way. The movement grew out of the old school message boards, but only has fairly slight overlap with the never-stopped-playing 1e Grognards. The very earliest iteration, OSRIC, was all about legally publishing third-party 1e AD&D modules - usually the kind of high level modules Grognards might make use of - in the style of ca 1985, but it quickly moved on to a focus on Moldvay Basic (1981) and OD&D (1974-77) and an examination of those systems' intended playstyles.

It's a "Renaissance" because it's a rebirth/rediscovery, and building on the shoulders of giants, like the Renaissance in 15th century Western Europe, rather than a straight continuation of the Classical world like the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantium.

Quote from: Premier;966636and to allow people to write and commercially sell adventures and other material for these games, by saying that e.g. it's a commercial product for OSRIC, rather than for AD&D 1st ed. (the latter of which you arguably couldn't do legally).

As an IP academic, I can't see any reason why a publisher can't legally produce 1e-compatible material, and some do. But most publishers are afraid of Cease & Desist letters to them and their distributors. These are almost always Trademark based not copyright based though, and the OGL doesn't give you any TM rights, quite the reverse - it bans nominative and descriptive uses that would otherwise be permitted. But with OSRIC a publisher could use the OGL, put "OSRIC" on the cover, and supposedly this would mean more to customers than a non-TM term like "1e". It does not make much sense legally, BUT there was a (correct) feeling that WoTC lawyers would not send C&Ds to companies who used the OGL and did not refer to WoTC TMs.

This allowed the OSR to develop, but most modern OSR games would be perfectly legal even without the OGL. Even without the OGL I can't see any basis for a C&D to the publishers of White Star or Apes Victorious, the two OSR games which arrived in my post yesterday.

To me the OSR came to represent the following.
1: The claim to be setting up a platform to create fan-made modules and material for older editions of D&D.
2: The ideal of "preserving" the older style of gameplay and rules.

How long either of these lasted I dont know. But at some point it seems to have become just a platform for flat out stealing older games now and an endless spiel of "retroclones" to the point some OSR are now stealing from other OSR. Then people started using it to swipe non-D&D games.

Then you have the so called self apointed gatekeepers of what OSR even means. And I've seen at least one claim that any version of D&D using a d10 isnt realy OSR. Insert-every-deity-on-earth-here wept.

Theres still some honest people out there actually producing new modules and material. But sometimes it feels like they will be lost on the vast morass of "clones" and garbage.

To me though the whole thing comes across as pointless a pointless cover and if OSR had some sort of meaning way back its pretty much lost it at this point.

It about people playing, promoting, and publishing for classic editions of D&D and anything else that interests them. It is a kaleidoscope because of it low barrier to entry due to the use of open content and digital technology for distribution. The only thing that prevents you reading this from distributing your own work is the time you have for your hobby and your interest in going the extra mile to polish your work.

The kaleidoscope that is the OSR defies and confuses a lot of people. For example people forget that many where making stuff for classic D&D prior to the release was of OSRIC and Basic Fantasy. The initial spurt of clones allowed many of the authors of these works to use the clones as a safe harbor to go further and releasing their ideas as polished, more or less, commericial works.

Which is I view the ideas of any waves other than the expanding use of open content as hogwash. In short the OSR is what you want it to be no less and no more.

Quote from: S'mon;966638From the POV of the OSR people, it was a revival/rediscovery of a lost art, a lost way of doing things. These are mostly people who started in the 1990s with metaplot heavy railroad RPGing, or in the 2000s with insanely crunch-heavy 3e D&D, and looked for a better way. The movement grew out of the old school message boards, but only has fairly slight overlap with the never-stopped-playing 1e Grognards. The very earliest iteration, OSRIC, was all about legally publishing third-party 1e AD&D modules - usually the kind of high level modules Grognards might make use of - in the style of ca 1985, but it quickly moved on to a focus on Moldvay Basic (1981) and OD&D (1974-77) and an examination of those systems' intended playstyles.

It's a "Renaissance" because it's a rebirth/rediscovery, and building on the shoulders of giants, like the Renaissance in 15th century Western Europe, rather than a straight continuation of the Classical world like the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantium.

My answer was going to be along these lines. In my mind it's a return to the simple systems of the early TSR days instead of the complex versions of the WotC days.

Quote from: Spinachcat;966633Here's my take.

1) AD&D revival movement
2) Publishing your house ruled interpretation of a TSR D&D edition using the OGL
3) Publishing dungeons / settings / supplements for TSR era D&D
4) Jabbering about TSR era stuff
5) Reviving interest in other early RPGs

Revival might have been a better word at OSR's start, but Renaissance is a fine word for what the OSR has become. There is now so much variety and different avenues of design from people who have engaged with the OSR that Renaissance works. But none of it would have existed without the early dudes working on retroclones.

I like revival, it's less pretentious.

Old D&D Good, Other Games Bad. Make all games old D&D.

The OSR seems to miss the non-D&D games that were popular in the early days, and to miss on original designs.

Quote from: DavetheLost;966671Old D&D Good, Other Games Bad. Make all games old D&D.

The OSR seems to miss the non-D&D games that were popular in the early days, and to miss on original designs.

Yeah. Several very cool games don't seem to get the same love.

Quote from: DavetheLost;966671The OSR seems to miss the non-D&D games that were popular in the early days, and to miss on original designs.

IMNSHO it simply recognises/views that OD&D or BX D&D is a much better rules chassis even for sf gaming than is eg Space Opera or other simulationist games of the 1970s & 1980s. Hence White Star et al. Obviously there are well designed non-D&D early games like Classic Traveller & Call of Cthulu that do what they aim to do, but most frankly were not as good as D&D. D&D did a lot of things right, things that people complained about even in 1977 but that make for good gaming.