I have only played a total of 1 5e game and that was years ago, so can't way in on how long it does/could take

Quote from: Jason Coplen on Today at 08:42:13 AMFor me, for the copper coin it's not worth, nothing bugs me more than lengthy character creation time in a game I don't know. Hand me a pregen and we'll call it a day.

& that is why for my girls' face to face game, every system we have played over the last 4+ years, I've started them with a group of pregens to chose from and ran them through an adventure or 2. Then we have a 'session 0' for them to make their own character and start the real campaign.

Quote from: David Johansen on Today at 10:20:02 AMCharacter creation generally takes more time the more options available.  Especially if you have a player who has to read every option and list it and weigh it before deciding.  There's always that one guy.  Though that's only a system issue in the sense that the more stuff there is in the game the more time he'll take.

After a home brew Castle & Crusade adventure arc, my girls' group played Call of Cthulhu/ Delta Green, and then Traveller. Unfortunately, my older daughter and her best friend that games with us are both "those guys". That, plus all the choices in CoC/DG and then even worse for Traveller, made the session 0 take WAY TO LONG. It was fun to watch them in Traveller go through the life path process and grow their character, but each choice was 'what is the right/best choice ? Should I stay in this career, should I change careers, if so then what career ....

Now that said. There is no way a D&D based character should take that long to make. Of course the great back story that has to go with the character can/should take weeks, ;-)

I don't remember who said "classification is not right or wrong, but useful or useless".

Of course you can call anything you like "OSR", but the OSR label is a thing that exists, mostly on DTRPG.

95% or more of the time, the label means compatibility with TSR.

Just check the first 100 titles to see if my guess is accurate:

https://legacy.drivethrurpg.com/browse.php?filters=45582_0_0_0_0

(Pundit is still number one... I'm number six today!)

The remaining 5% have a vague OSR aesthetic/sensibility (Mork Borg, Troika, etc.).

It is not useless; I use it to both buy and sell products that are compatible with TSR D&D.

I used it today, I just saw this product on sale that looks interesting:

https://legacy.drivethrurpg.com/product/349306/The-City-of-the-Red-Pox

No OSR label, probably not compatible - it is for Troika, mentioned above.

I gave other clear example enough: somente used the OSR label and got immediately corrected on DTRPG.

Yes, there are many incorrect uses, but most of the time the term has a meaning, and it means at least vaguely compatible with TSR D&D.

It is okay to argue about history/etymology, but that is how the term is currently used.

Quote from: Brad on Today at 09:07:12 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 27, 2024, 08:16:35 PMYou both are wrong, the OSR started as retroclones of the D&D editions you couldn't buy. So much so those were the first retroclones and the logo was designed to mimic TSR's.

Key word bolded. OSR games started as an exercise to duplicate old TSR rules-sets in order to publish AD&D modules. They used the OGL to do so. People eventually figured out the OGL could also be finessed to make all sorts of retroclones based on Traveller, FACERIP, TFT, etc. TLG made C&C as essentially an AD&D-ified 3rd edition D&D; it counted as OSR. After a while, the OSR morphed to essentially mean TSR-based games, with B/X being the largest group of these; I'd say 90% of OSR products look more like B/X than anything else TSR ever made. C&C no longer counts as OSR, in my opinion, using this definition.

If we extend the "there were two OSRs" to cover what actually happened, then sure, it means two different things depending on who you ask. But, I was there Gandalf. I was there three thousand years ago. I remember.

So you agree that both of you were wrong, since both of you were saying the opposite, that the OSR DIDN'T start as Totally-NotD&D.

Then, latter people started making retroclones of OTHER systems/games, which makes those other products both retroclones AND Old School, but not OSR.

And NOW there's tons of products incorrectly lumped with the OSR rendering the label useless in DTTRPG.

Glad to hear it! Spread the word, share the video!

Quote from: Brad on Today at 09:12:59 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 27, 2024, 08:34:02 PMExcept that's a lie. What was happening in the original OSR (1st wave) movement was that they were very open about playing all kinds of old games, and making supplements for those games, and making clones of those games, but they consistently rejected any modifications that went too far from whatever their favorite one true ruleset was. The old OSR was vastly more restrictive. Innovation was treated with witch-trial like suspicion.

Today, there are literally thousands of OSR products, most of which are 2nd or 3rd wave, that is to say not directly based on ANY specific TSR era product. But all are based on the core of D&D design concepts.

Is it, though? I don't think there was any conscious effort to stick to the text strictly beyond, "We want to play old school D&D but can't find copies of the books so let's just duplicate them." That's a lot different than some draconian edict that abhorred differences. You are right that people complained about differences that were seemingly irrelevant (LL and 1st level cleric spells were a big one), but again, was this conscious or just a product of not really innovating? I don't believe people didn't want to innovate, there just wasn't any reason to at all.

I think we're talking past each other here...

It's actually the core difference, as I explain in my video, between "revival" and "renaissance". Revival is going "back to the that ole-time religion", making things as conservatively as possible (often more conservative than they ever really were in the old-time). A "renaissance" is when people want to recover the old techniques and create new masterpieces with them.

So a "revival" is inherently anti-innovation while a renaissance is inherently pro-creativity, just within certain boxes.

Quote from: Brad on Today at 09:21:24 AM

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2024, 08:33:05 PMHey Brad! That is interesting. I didn't know. As I mentioned, everyone I have heard discuss the OSR--out in YouTube land--everyone talks about the OSR being based on D&D games. The only people I have heard claim something different is well, here, with Jeff and now you.

I am sure that's all you've ever thought it has been; no one who embraced the OSR DIY mindset who was cloning Traveller ever branded it as OSR, from my recollection. It was lumped into the entire "movement," but fairly early on OSR started to become a buzzword that no one could agree one until a group of individuals started to put logos on OSRIC modules and that was it. If it wasn't compatible with TSR-era D&D, it wasn't OSR.

I have no idea why Pundit is arguing this point, honestly. He should know better than anyone that the OSR brand has little to do with the original OSR.

It's his forum, history be damned.

Character creation generally takes more time the more options available.  Especially if you have a player who has to read every option and list it and weigh it before deciding.  There's always that one guy.  Though that's only a system issue in the sense that the more stuff there is in the game the more time he'll take.

We started our 5E campaigns back in 2014 at first level. We were new to the system and it took players a while to create characters because they were reading through the classes for the first time. These days we start at 3rd level and can get characters cranked out pretty quick. Character creation time depends on how well you know the system. Maybe it takes longer if someone using the slow ass D&D Beyond interface? Using a blank character sheet and pencil I can have one ready to go real fast.

Quote from: SHARK on May 27, 2024, 08:33:05 PMHey Brad! That is interesting. I didn't know. As I mentioned, everyone I have heard discuss the OSR--out in YouTube land--everyone talks about the OSR being based on D&D games. The only people I have heard claim something different is well, here, with Jeff and now you.

I am sure that's all you've ever thought it has been; no one who embraced the OSR DIY mindset who was cloning Traveller ever branded it as OSR, from my recollection. It was lumped into the entire "movement," but fairly early on OSR started to become a buzzword that no one could agree one until a group of individuals started to put logos on OSRIC modules and that was it. If it wasn't compatible with TSR-era D&D, it wasn't OSR.

I have no idea why Pundit is arguing this point, honestly. He should know better than anyone that the OSR brand has little to do with the original OSR.

Quote from: RPGPundit on May 27, 2024, 08:34:02 PMExcept that's a lie. What was happening in the original OSR (1st wave) movement was that they were very open about playing all kinds of old games, and making supplements for those games, and making clones of those games, but they consistently rejected any modifications that went too far from whatever their favorite one true ruleset was. The old OSR was vastly more restrictive. Innovation was treated with witch-trial like suspicion.

Today, there are literally thousands of OSR products, most of which are 2nd or 3rd wave, that is to say not directly based on ANY specific TSR era product. But all are based on the core of D&D design concepts.

Is it, though? I don't think there was any conscious effort to stick to the text strictly beyond, "We want to play old school D&D but can't find copies of the books so let's just duplicate them." That's a lot different than some draconian edict that abhorred differences. You are right that people complained about differences that were seemingly irrelevant (LL and 1st level cleric spells were a big one), but again, was this conscious or just a product of not really innovating? I don't believe people didn't want to innovate, there just wasn't any reason to at all.

I think we're talking past each other here...