# What is OSR about?



## Bullgrit

Every time I see someone talking about the Old School Revival, I wonder what, exactly, are the supporters trying to “revive”?

Is it a specific edition of D&D? AD&D2, AD&D1, BD&D, OD&D?

Or is it anything pre-D&D3, or pre-WotC? That’s pretty broad – AD&D is vastly different than OD&D.

Is it a certain style of play? If so, what are the specific aspects of the style? I mean, different people have different definitions of “old school” style – often opposing definitions. (Someone says OS is X, someone else says OS is anti-X, and I can find examples of both X and anti-X in classic D&D materials.)

So what is OSR about? I’m just not getting it.

I like playing D&D nowadays in the ways that I used to play it 20-30 years ago, (or in the ways I _wanted_ to play it 20-30 years ago). But I prefer to use a more recent edition of the game. I like what I consider the good aspects of “old school” (I prefer the term, “classic”), and I play with them today. I dislike what I consider the bad aspects of “old school” (“classic”), and I avoid them today. But I use a modern edition. So, am I an “old schooler”?

Bullgrit


----------



## Tav_Behemoth

Bullgrit, I just posted about what the OSR means to me  at The Mule Abides. I see it as useful in the same way that a genre label like science fiction is: if I read a library book with a rocketship sticker on the spine, it's awesome to know that I'll probably like other books on that same shelf, and the process of reading all the works grouped together in that way will help me form my own take on what "science fiction" means and what I consider its unique virtues. Rob Conley's comments there suggest a writerly viewpoint: for a SF writer, it means a dialog you want to participate in and a set of concerns around which you want to write stuff that others haven't explored.

I agree that there's a wide diversity of games in the pre-WotC/White Wolf period that OSR folks are interested in, and very different approaches to playing the same game from that era. But in my experience, actively playing with those games and learning about how others play them now & in the past can teach you valuable lessons about how to approach gaming that are different from what you learn from new-school games. 

For me - and my opinion about who is an old-schooler is worth as much as anyone's, which is to say "not worth anything at all" - playing older games is necessary but not sufficient. The other part is how someone thinks of themselves! If someone tries playing a game I think of as old-school and doesn't find any aspect of its approach interesting or worthwhile, neither of us would say they're old-school. If someone is like "that was awesome, I totally get what its unique strengths are and I see how I can change the aspects of the expectations/rules/adventure design/etc. of the RPG I normally play that get in the way of that awesomeness," I'm happy to call them old-school. 

I'd only grumble only if someone claims that their campaign is old-school but doesn't base that on actual experience with old-school games, and that's more about the limitations of internet communication than paying dues or establishing cred. If I haven't been able to play in your campaign, I can't know whether it hits the notes I think of as uniquely old-school; if we've both adventured in the Caves of Quasqueton using a similar ruleset, we have a common reference point to compare whether we're coming from the same place.

Bullgrit, I've always found your own engagement with old editions of D&D to be inspirational and informative, so I'm happy to award you my own stamp of approval (that, and $4.95, will get you a cup of coffee). Whether you want to consider yourself an old-schooler is up to you!


----------



## billd91

It could be using the old rules, it could be using new revisions or interpretations of old rules, it could be using new rules to play the way you did with the old rules.

But I think it goes way beyond D&D versions. Classic Traveller has been very popular among afficionados in contrast to later versions like GURPS Traveller, d20 Traveller, and Mongoose Traveller.

In some ways, I feel it's a way to play in reaction to the advancements in design of game rules and/or adventures. In many cases, more recent game rules are slicker, more tightly structured. But, in some cases, while elegant, I think they're less artful. Less insightful. Over-designed. More sterile. Less intrinsically interesting.

I think there's a relationship between old school revivalism and preference for rules light systems as well. While even old games like 1e AD&D have LOTS of rules, vast swathes of what a character can and cannot do is left undefined, moreso than in later editions that worked harder to structure the rules to account for unexpected actions. I can't fault later editions for doing so since they did it to make the rules more transparent to the player and better foster appropriate player expectations. But I think it leads to a different psychological space for the game than old school rules gaming.


----------



## Reynard

As far as games go, it extends well beyond various editions of D&D. Basic Role-Playing has its own old school clone, as does MSH (I think).

Nor does one have had to been active in the pre-1980 era. i myself was 10 when i was introduced to D&D through the Red Box in 1985, and discovered AD&D 1E and "Old School" play afterward and found that I preferred both the playstyle and the game designs inherent in the "old school".

I'll also note that the OSR does not seem to be limited to RPGs. If you look at video games, they are going through their own OSR right now. Sure, there have always been people that kept their Atari 2600 machines (AD&D books) up and running, but there's now a lot of emulators and remakes (OSRIC).

Honestly, i think it is more about easy, open communication between people who share a love for something, AND a dstribution system that does rely on market power: aka, the internet. Now we not only know we aren't alone, preferring the old games to the new ones, but we can talk about them, acquire them and play them, too.


----------



## billd91

It's not limited to gaming either. There have been "back to basics" movements in other areas as well, like the roots rock reaction against new wave and highly-produced pop in the 1980s.

And if you've ever listened to *Let it Be... Naked* and compared it to the original with Phil Spector's Wall of Sound productions, you're witnessing an old school revival, at least with respect to Beatles' music.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament

Hell if I know.  Part of the problem with trying to define it is that it wasn't a planned 'thing;' it's just a bunch of guys with some overlapping tastes and enthusiasm for certain games, all talking about their games and creating new material.  Enough guys started doing that that somebody out there stuck a label on it.  The tastes of the guys involved in the "OSR" aren't unified or dogmatic; they're just overlapping, so the "OSR" is almost certainly different things to different people. It definitely had its roots in older editions of D&D and the advent of retro-clones and similar systems.  I think the 70s and 80s editions of D&D are still its main center of gravity.

For me, despite some interest in other older games (or newer ones in an older spirit, like Mutant Future), it's still all about playing and reading about the D&D editions I prefer.  I don't care about the OSR as an organization or a "movement."  I just like doing my thing, and hopefully sharing the fun with others.


----------



## Desdichado

I think the OSR is more specific than the more generic label "old school."

The OSR specifically refers to the blogosphere about old school games, the retro-clone phenomena, and the indie-publishing arena for material that supports those games.

Just plain old school is something else entirely.  Based on what you describe, Bullgrit, I'd say you've got some old-school vibe, but you're not part of the OSR.

Well, by definition---if you aren't aware of the OSR, you can hardly be a part of it anyway.


----------



## Ourph

Bullgrit said:


> So what is OSR about? I’m just not getting it.



I'm not sure it's "about" anything. I think it just IS.

Around the time that 3e came out a lot of players who didn't migrate to the new edition (or who migrated and weren't happy with it) started getting together on the internet to talk about their games and sometimes to write and distribute free gaming material for older editions (primarily 1e). A few years after that, some guys decided to use the OGL and the 3e SRD to clone the rules for several early versions of D&D, which helped to turn free distribution of gaming material into something (slightly) more commercial.

The fact that what were formerly free, amateur .pdf projects started to become available as physical print products with wider distribution and more exposure at cons, in gaming stores and through POD sites like Lulu coincided with what appears to have been a major uptick in blogs talking about old school games. The death of Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson and a few other notable personages from the early days of TSR also created a lot of interest in the history of D&D and older games at about the same time and fueled interest in both the blogs and the old games they were talking about. There also seems to have been an upsurge in the number of small Cons going on that focus on old school or retro gaming as opposed to the newest, latest games. People saw all of these things happening, felt that they were probably interrelated in some way and dubbed the phenomenon the OSR.

So, from my perspective, there's no way to say "This group comprises the OSR." or "The OSR is trying to do X.". It's a label for a bunch of related events that all seemed to just happen within the same 5-8 year span, comprising a lot of different people, places and activities, most of which don't interact with each other in any directly observable way.


----------



## estar

Bullgrit said:


> So what is OSR about? I’m just not getting it.




It is about people playing older edition. 90% of the focus is on older editions of D&D specifically OD&D, Moldavy/Cook B/X, Mentzer BECMI, and AD&D 1st. 

Beyond that it varies greatly depending on what group you are talking about which confuses many gamers. 

The best way to learn about the OSR is to ask specific questions and remember that beyond playing older edition no blanket statement is true of the entire OSR.


----------



## estar

Bullgrit said:


> Is it a certain style of play? If so, what are the specific aspects of the style? I mean, different people have different definitions of “old school” style –




A preferred style exists for most of the OSR. It was born of the minimalist nature of the oldest editions and the fact the rulesets lack much of what is found in more recent RPGs. 

The best source is the free Old School Primer by Matt Finch.

Quick Primer for Old School Gaming by Matthew Finch in Games

Again this not necessarily applies all of the OSR. For this particular example it is safe that that most (over 50%) of the OSR finds this useful in their games.



Bullgrit said:


> I like playing D&D nowadays in the ways that I used to play it 20-30 years ago, (or in the ways I _wanted_ to play it 20-30 years ago). But I prefer to use a more recent edition of the game.




Many do, I ran the Wilderlands for 20 years using GURPS Fantasy before I starting writing Swords & Wizardry Material. I never strayed far from my original roots in AD&D 1st (orcs, elves, dungeons, etc) so it wasn't a hassle for me to switch to using another ruleset to write up the material I created while running GURPS.


----------



## estar

Hobo said:


> The OSR specifically refers to the blogosphere about old school games, the retro-clone phenomena, and the indie-publishing arena for material that supports those games.




I don't agree. The forums like Knights-n-Knaves, Dragonsfoot, Original D&D disscussion. Magazinzes like Fight On! All of these are considered part of the OSR by most observers.

It is however largely focused on D&D, so the emerging communities around the revivals of Traveller, and Runequest are distinct from what most consider to be the OSR. Traveller and Runequest are certainly old school.

However to confuse matter the OSR has embraced games like Mutant Future, Encounter Critical. Some effort is being made in the Swords & Planet genre that is consider part of the OSR by most Observers.


----------



## Umbran

Bullgrit said:


> Is it a certain style of play? If so, what are the specific aspects of the style?




I have a hard time figuring that out myself.  I have had several people try to tell me the difference between "old school" and "new school" - and I keep running up against what seems to me to be the facts that nothing in the "new" school is particularly new, and the stuff in the "old" school seems pretty common in "new" materials.

I have come to think the "old" and "new" tags are not properly descriptive.  YMMV.


----------



## Haltherrion

Bullgrit said:


> I like playing D&D nowadays in the ways that I used to play it 20-30 years ago, (or in the ways I _wanted_ to play it 20-30 years ago). But I prefer to use a more recent edition of the game. I like what I consider the good aspects of “old school” (I prefer the term, “classic”), and I play with them today. I dislike what I consider the bad aspects of “old school” (“classic”), and I avoid them today. But I use a modern edition. So, am I an “old schooler”?
> 
> Bullgrit




I won't claim to be an old schooler but I'm with you in general on this. Within a very wide range of latitude, the rules don't make the game for me; how the game is executed matters. And while the latter editions do change things I like from a comfort point of view, I have to confess they generally also correct what I find to be glaring problems with the older systems. So couple what is for me a general improvement of game mechanics with being able to leverage the bulk of where the gaming community is and I'm all for new school.

Regarding old school play, I've been gaming continuously since 1977. And while I don't game multiple times a week like I did in high school or weekly as in college, I still manage a reasonable amount of gaming. Looking back over my game career, mostly as a ref, there really isn't much I'd steal from my early days of gaming as I like to think that I've continuously improved as a ref, and that that improvement has little to do with the system in use.

This improvement for me has to do with learning how to manage a game, work with players, deliver a strong level of entertainment that can compete with other entertainment outlets available to my players while engaging my players (which most certainly does not mean railroading them in case any wonder). And since I love world-building, it also has to do with creating better quality worlds. No dungeons packed with creatures that would eat each other for me 

If I was ever in a situation where I could game weekly and had multiple game geeks (such as myself), I might go back to a more sandbox game similar to what I used to play in the early 80s but even then it would leverage more of what I've learned since the 80s. And I would see no need to go back to an older system. Aside from nostalgia, there is much more I don't like about the older systems than the newer systems.

So for those who like older systems, more power to you and I'm glad to see people engaging enough to develop something of a community. But personally as someone who has played every system, I don't see any particular attraction for the old ways.

Edit:
I guess one thing has remained constant with me over the years- I've never paid any attention to fluffy stuff in the rules and always seen fit to make my own settings and play my own style of game.


----------



## The Shaman

Ourph said:


> *snipped*



To *Ourph*'s capsule history of the OSR, I'll simply add that in addition to gamers who continued to play pre-3e editions of _D&D_, like the folks at D'foot and K&K, there were some who gravitated toward older roleplaying games as they became frustrated with 3e and d20.

My personal "OSR" was _Traveller_, which reignited my interest in games like _Top Secret_, _Boot Hill_, and _Flashing Blades_.

However, as *estar* notes, while there was a resurgence in interest in older games, the OSR is predominately focused on pre-WOTC _D&D_, with more recent forays into planetary romance.

For what it's worth, I believe there is something to the argument that 'old school' is about playstyle, because even though I'm not a big _D&D_ fan, I found much in common with the way the community at Dragonsfoot approaches roleplaying games generally, much more so than I do here.

I've also read the suggestion that one of the motivating forces driving the OSR is to remind gamers that just because a game is no longer in print or actively supported by new material, it doesn't suddenly become unplayable or obsolete. I share that sentiment, very much.



And in the irony department? As I was typing my post, the banner add on the left side of the screen was for Noble Knight Games.


----------



## darjr

To confuse things more, some of the OSR places have adopted games that in my mind are firmly in the new school, like Dragons Foot's embrace of Savage Worlds.

I know it isn't universal, but it is a point of potential confusion.


----------



## TerraDave

The Shaman said:


> To *Ourph*'s capsule history of the OSR, I'll simply add that in addition to gamers who continued to play pre-3e editions of _D&D_, like the folks at D'foot and K&K, there were some who gravitated toward older roleplaying games as they became frustrated with 3e and d20.




In hindsight, what I think was exceptional was how people rallied around 3E/d20 when it came out. That wasn't going to last. And so we have the "OSR", along with many other online RPG "communities".


----------



## Reynard

Umbran said:


> I have a hard time figuring that out myself.  I have had several people try to tell me the difference between "old school" and "new school" - and I keep running up against what seems to me to be the facts that nothing in the "new" school is particularly new, and the stuff in the "old" school seems pretty common in "new" materials.
> 
> I have come to think the "old" and "new" tags are not properly descriptive.  YMMV.




Labels rarely are, because their meaning comes from an internal rather than external source,. Confusion is bound to happen.

But here's a quick and easy test:

You(r character) enter a room with no apparent exits and a large statue in the center. Do you a) make a search/perception/etc check, or b) describe your every action down to where you place your hands and with how much pressure.

A) New School.
B) Old School.


----------



## Reynard

TerraDave said:


> In hindsight, what I think was exceptional was how people rallied around 3E/d20 when it came out. That wasn't going to last. And so we have the "OSR", along with many other online RPG "communities".




I think 4E was the galvanizing foprce behind the so called OSR. While 3E did in fact get a lot of knickers in twists, 4E was a fundamental paradigm shift as opposed to 3E's "evolutionary step". I'm not making a judgement call one way or the other, just saying that because it -- mechanically, fluff wise and in assumed playstyle -- those that were on the fence and leaning toward "old school" D&D jumped right over and cried havok.

Also, I agree with above assertion that Gary Gygax's death had a lot to do with it. I have always loved AD&D, but when EGG died I actually re-read every book, evwery magazine article, every adventure by him that I own or have access to and that cemented a lot of my "old school" attitude.


----------



## threshel

The Shaman said:


> *snip*
> _Flashing Blades_
> *snip*




That game comes up so rarely that I have to express my love for it:
_Flashing Blades is an incredibly fun game.  I find myself tweaking combat rules in nearly every other system to get that same move/countermove feel that Flashing Blades has in it's melee combat system.

/hijack.


J_


----------



## Ourph

Reynard said:


> I think 4E was the galvanizing foprce behind the so called OSR.



This seems to be a common perception here at EN World, but I think it's probably a misperception. The level of activity in OSR spheres really took off a year or so before the release of 4e, fueled primarily by clone games like OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord becoming available as print products and clone-compatible adventures like Expeditious Retreat's Advanced Adventures line making their way into retail distribution. If anything the whole 3e/4e transition with Pathfinder emerging as a big player probably stole a little of the OSR's thunder.

I think the main things that fueled the post 2008 growth of the OSR were the loss of Gary and Dave and Swords & Wizardry winning a silver Ennie. From my perspective, those events really ramped up the interest in older games and their clones and fueled the "blog explosion". The fact that they occured around the emergence of a new edition of D&D was more coincidence than cause and effect in my opinion.


----------



## interwyrm

My guess is nostalgia. OSR is whatever you played when you first started RPGs.


----------



## Ariosto

The "revival" or "renaissance" that stands out most notably to me is in the field of publications. For a long time, there was very little in the way of new books, magazines, modules, and so on for the player of TSR-era _Dungeons & Dragons_. The Dragonsfoot Website had some offerings, but there seemed to be a bottleneck in production -- and free PDFs such as those were pretty much it.

Now, there are a number of restatements (to varying degrees of fidelity) of old rules sets, along with games and supplements that take less familiar directions of development. There books of new monsters, as well as collections of old standards.

There are "dungeon modules" and other such material. There are at least two magazines, _Fight On!_ and _Knockspell_.

Much of the above is available printed and bound, either via Lulu or from the publishers. PDFs often are also for sale, which can help publishers pay for art and cover other costs.


----------



## Ariosto

The things I mentioned above are (as far as I can tell) mostly from the hands of hobbyists rather than people whose "day jobs" are turning out game product.

Kenzer & Company's _Hackmaster_ and Troll Lord Games' _Castles & Crusades_ both (I think) preceded most of the "grass roots" OSR initiatives. In at least one demographic, disappointment in those seemed to me to play a part in the drive to "do it ourselves".

Materials for HM "4e" and C&C tend to be pretty easy to use with the "retro-clones", and vice-versa, from what I have seen -- and of course they are all more or less compatible with material for old D&D editions.


----------



## The Shaman

Ourph said:


> This seems to be a common perception here at EN World, but I think it's probably a misperception. The level of activity in OSR spheres really took off a year or so before the release of 4e, fueled primarily by clone games like OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord becoming available as print products and clone-compatible adventures like Expeditious Retreat's Advanced Adventures line making their way into retail distribution. If anything the whole 3e/4e transition with Pathfinder emerging as a big player probably stole a little of the OSR's thunder.
> 
> I think the main things that fueled the post 2008 growth of the OSR were the loss of Gary and Dave and Swords & Wizardry winning a silver Ennie. From my perspective, those events really ramped up the interest in older games and their clones and fueled the "blog explosion". The fact that they occured around the emergence of a new edition of D&D was more coincidence than cause and effect in my opinion.



That fits my recollection of events as well, *Ourph*: the beginnings of the OSR were firmly in place before EGG's passing and well before 4e was announced.


----------



## The Shaman

threshel said:


> That game comes up so rarely that I have to express my love for it: Flashing Blades is an incredibly fun game.  I find myself tweaking combat rules in nearly every other system to get that same move/countermove feel that Flashing Blades has in it's melee combat system.
> 
> /hijack.



It's a shame you don't live a little closer to southern California, J, 'cause I've got the campaign for you.


----------



## Umbran

Reynard said:


> But here's a quick and easy test:




Except when the Old Schoolers tell you that that particular style of play was something they weren't trying to emulate 

I'm sorry, but from what I've been told, "old school" isn't a single thing you can point to.  There may be a test for what one person considers "old school", but when you talk to someone else, they'll give you a different test.


----------



## Henry

The Shaman said:


> That fits my recollection of events as well, *Ourph*: the beginnings of the OSR were firmly in place before EGG's passing and well before 4e was announced.




According to one source, OSRIC was released by poster PapersnPaychecks about the middle of 2006, and was in the works with poster Mythmere about a year or two before that. Solomoriah over on Dragonsfoot had released BFRP before that, and Castles and Crusades, maybe the first that could earn "old school inspired" status, was around, what, 2004. in the works since 2003? So the Old School stuff had really gained momentum by 2007, before 4E was officially announced later that year. Really, Swords and Wizardry was the only "old school" system I can think of announced after 4E's, announcement in '07.


			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but from what I've been told, "old school" isn't a single thing you can point to. There may be a test for what one person considers "old school", but when you talk to someone else, they'll give you a different test.




How about "old school" more refers to any product predominantly similar in mechanics to any edition of D&D prior to 3E? I'm sure there's some disagreement, but it's the only objective factor you can point to with all the fantasy games that are in consideration in this thread.


----------



## The Greene Knight

The OSR? It's like porn. I know it when I see it. 
(Allusion to recent TARGA talks fully intended)


----------



## Reynard

Umbran said:


> Except when the Old Schoolers tell you that that particular style of play was something they weren't trying to emulate
> 
> I'm sorry, but from what I've been told, "old school" isn't a single thing you can point to.  There may be a test for what one person considers "old school", but when you talk to someone else, they'll give you a different test.




I was making a joke (although there's some truth to it, in my own experiences at least).

In the end, it means system, I think -- simply by virtue of the fact that peoples' experiences were so very different, given the same time period and the same rules set. And as well it should be: no form of entertainment is so mutable, so audience dependent as RPGs. That everyoen recalls The Moathouse, but remembers it somewhat differently is the ultimate feature of RPGs. We have both unique experiences and common experiences -- in the same experiences. That is something that is precious and worthwhile.

I like "old school" games because they do what I want them to do -- get the hell out of the way. And I don't mean in the "we only rolled dice twice last night" kind of way. Rather, "we only looked at the rulebook/our character sheets/the battleboard twice last night" kind of way. Part of that is familiarity, certainly, but part of it is blank spaces between the rules where a combination of good judgement and dramatic flair create the game. Maybe "rules light" is the term, though I don't think so: I love AD&D 1E above all (not least because of the DMG) and it is pretty fiddly. There's a lot of rules in there. It's lighter than 3E, certainly, but crunchier, I think, than 2E or BECM D&D.

Anyway, everytime I think I can define "Old School" it ends up like art and porn: I know it when I see it. [EDIT: Apologies to The Green Knight]


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

I believe that what is now percieved as OSR (Old School Revival/Renaissance) began with the introduction of 3rd Edition.  While there was possibly as much objection to the introduction of 2nd edition the objectors did not have a widely accessible form of group communication as we have now on the internet.  Oh, the internet was THERE, it just wan't widely available.  Interestingly, I recall at the time of 3E that those who objected to 3E seemingly on general principles were typically called _Luddites_ as opposed to grognards.  Anyway, in addition to being able to complain publicly and have those complaints widely seen there was another important difference from the time of the introduction of 2E as a new edition - that is that the previous editions would cease seeing any and all official support.

Furthermore, it's my perception that the WotC approach to the game began to differ.  The _official_ rules were presented as being quite paramount.  They never said the official rules should trump your personal preferences and house rules, but they seemed quite happy to let you believe that to be the truth.  They way they came to structure their new ruleset also DISTINCTLY shifted a large portion of control of the game away from the DM and into the hands of the players.

Certainly, I personally came to find this ever more objectionable.  It may not have constituted the causes/effects of the "movement" but it comprises my own motivations for embracing it.

Someone asked upthread that if they preferred to use a newer edtion but in a different way if they were to be considered OSR.  YES, they would because they reject the idea that the rules as presented must be obeyed and that ANY way they choose to use them within their own gaming group is not just viable but PREFERABLE to assuming that someone else knows best how you and your group can/should employ any rules.

Understandably, there came to be a wider and wider disconnect between those who enjoyed more personalized-yet-freeform rulesets and those who seemed to know only that newer=better(always) and official=superior to houserules because someone thought it more profitable for EVERYONE to believe such things.  This is why my mantra is that Old School is not about what edition you play - but how you play it.  Too many seem to be coopting the "OSR" as closer to an Edition War - that newer editions are objectively inferior.  The differences then in what OSR is supposed to be a bout can be subtle, but it's important to distinguish.

As an Old School adherent I believe that while I prefer the older mechanics it does not affect MY enjoyment or game preferences a whit that someone else should find 4E mechanics wildly preferable.  I believe that it is not just preferable but a superior approach to the game for the DM to have broad, sweeping powers of absolute authority - but to be expected to rule with as light a touch as possible.  I don't care that some people prefer character construction in and of itself as the key to enjoyment of the game but strenuously object to the rules themselves not embracing with equal fervor the possibility that as much or even vastly more can be made of other aspects of gameplay.

Such are the concepts that OSR SHOULD be promoting, IMNSHO.


----------



## Desdichado

The Shaman said:


> That fits my recollection of events as well, *Ourph*: the beginnings of the OSR were firmly in place before EGG's passing and well before 4e was announced.



No doubt; the roots of the OSR easily stretch back to the founding of the Dragonsfoot forums and the excitement over Necromancer's intent to intentionally promote an "old school" feel in their products.  _At least_.  I don't really know what was going on online in D&Diana before the release of 3e, but I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a nascent OSR vibe there too.

But the roots of something and then that something itself are two different things.  I don't think you can talk about the OSR itself until you get to the retroclones and the blog explosion.  Otherwise, it's not the OSR, it's just some OS activity that eventually became the OSR.


----------



## billd91

estar said:


> It is however largely focused on D&D, so the emerging communities around the revivals of Traveller, and Runequest are distinct from what most consider to be the OSR. Traveller and Runequest are certainly old school.




If that's what "most" consider, I would consider that "most" to be mistaken. D&D, as usual, gets the attention because it's the biggest game around, the widest known, and the widest played. If it tends to dominate old school discussions, that makes sense because it was the game most played in the old school days as well as now.


----------



## TerraDave

Reynard said:


> I think 4E was the galvanizing foprce behind the so called OSR. While 3E did in fact get a lot of knickers in twists, 4E was a fundamental paradigm shift as opposed to 3E's "evolutionary step". I'm not making a judgement call one way or the other, just saying that because it -- mechanically, fluff wise and in assumed playstyle -- those that were on the fence and leaning toward "old school" D&D jumped right over and cried havok.
> 
> Also, I agree with above assertion that Gary Gygax's death had a lot to do with it. I have always loved AD&D, but when EGG died I actually re-read every book, evwery magazine article, every adventure by him that I own or have access to and that cemented a lot of my "old school" attitude.




As others have also noted, pre 4E you already had

-People who had kept playing pre 1990 D&D (and hence the 2E roots of the movement) 

-People disatisfied with 3E

-Some retro-clones, and, crucially, the idea of doing new stuff for old games.

But ya, all these blogs and the whole thing really started to take off around the anouncment of 4E, which was both a further break with the past and came with a bunch of criticism of 3E.

Of course, threads like this make me wonder, has the OSR peaked?


----------



## Reynard

TerraDave said:


> As others have also noted, pre 4E you already had
> 
> -People who had kept playing pre 1990 D&D (and hence the 2E roots of the movement)
> 
> -People disatisfied with 3E
> 
> -Some retro-clones, and, crucially, the idea of doing new stuff for old games.
> 
> But ya, all these blogs and the whole thing really started to take off around the anouncment of 4E, which was both a further break with the past and came with a bunch of criticism of 3E.




That's what i meant by "galvanized". Obviously, there's been some sort of "old school movement" since the first OD&D supplement, but I think the confluence of 4E, Gary's death and a lot of PDF publishers with the d20 license about to be pulled all helped turn the nascent OSR into a micro-fad.



> Of course, threads like this make me wonder, has the OSR peaked?




You may be right., but that's okay. As long as there's always a Dragonsfoot and other like sites, where people can share their Old School love, I'll be okay with that.


----------



## Grimstaff

The OSR's main objective is to generate queries as to what the OSR is.


----------



## The Shaman

Hobo said:


> I don't think you can talk about the OSR itself until you get to the retroclones and the blog explosion.



And that's exactly what I was talking about, *Hobo*: I remember a number of the online discussions that preceded OSRIC and the release of first retro-clones, which I took as the beginning of the OSR.

I recall seeing discussions about publishing new material for older editions of _D&D_ around 2005 - not just releasing free stuff by .pdf on fansites, but adventures that could legally be distributed and sold in gaming stores - and not just on Dragonsfoot, but here and *Big Purple*; that's significant to me in that both of the latter sites were very 3e-centric in their _D&D_ discussions at that time, so the conversations stood out.

So I don't know where you get the idea that I, or anyone else, was conflating persisting interest in older games with as what has come to be called the OSR.


----------



## Umbran

The Shaman said:


> And that's exactly what I was talking about, *Hobo*: I remember a number of the online discussions that preceded OSRIC and the release of first retro-clones, which I took as the beginning of the OSR.




I think Hobo's point is that the beginnings of a thing shouldn't be conflated with the thing itself.  There was some old school action back then, that is not to be denied.  However, it looks like he's saying it wasn't the Old School Revival (as a proper name, with capital letters) until later.  So, perhaps he'd call that activity farther back the seeds of the OSR, differentiating it from the current growth.

I think there's some value to that - it perhaps shouldn't be considered a Named Thing until the point where it reaches a certain level of fervency and activity.  You may, of course, differ on what you think that level should be.


----------



## Bullgrit

Grimstaff said:
			
		

> The OSR's main objective is to generate queries as to what the OSR is.



"The first rule of OSR is talk about OSR."

Bullgrit


----------



## The Shaman

Umbran said:


> I think there's some value to that - it perhaps shouldn't be considered a Named Thing until the point where it reaches a certain level of fervency and activity.



As someone who watched this take shape over many years, I would say that it was what it was before someone thought to slap a label on it.


----------



## Steel_Wind

> So what is OSR about?




_Nostalgia_.  TIA.


----------



## Chainsaw

Steel_Wind said:


> _Nostalgia_.  TIA.




Oh come on... pretty sure all the guys a) still playing the 70's games and b) writing clones and adventures through clones aren't just nostalgic…


----------



## JohnRTroy

First of all, OSR is a nebulous name, it's either called "Revival" or "Renaissance" depending on who you ask.

The OSR as referenced to that seemed to be born out of a few things.  There were rule sets created to be clones of OD&D/AD&D coming out a few years ago.  I think the key critical mass came when EGG died and WoTC announced 4e, because the former gave us some introspection and thoughts towards the history of D&D, the latter I think caused a lot more alienation of older D&D fans because of all the changes.  It's sort of like a perfect storm came into place.

The key difference in the last few years is the proliferation of blogs (instead of message boards) reflecting on the past, along with the word being adopted.

It's hard to know if this is a sudden increase in activity is large or small.  

I think a lot of additional stuff factors does involve the nostalgia element.  Note--this IS NOT A BAD THING, Nostalgia is not a dirty word unless it is used as such.  Part of the reality right now is that many of us who started in the very late 1970s to early 1980s are now approaching middle age.  That involves some reflection on the past--people revisiting their formative years.  That's why you see oldies focused on the music of 30-20 years ago as a key demographic.

And you will note this with some blogs.  While some blogs focus on general analysis, other talk about other things along with gaming like comics and "heavy metal".  That isn't really old-school.  (Most of the game creators weren't really into heavy metal like the adolescents who played it).  

To be honest, I hate the term "old school" in itself because that's a colloquialism that seems fundamental opposed to the language of D&D, and to be represents the slang of the 80s generation.

We'll have to see how long the "R" part of the OSR lasts.  If it's something deeper than middle-age reflection and/or a fad, it'll likely last and grow stronger.  If not, it won't.  

As long as people have fun, I don't care.


----------



## Umbran

The Shaman said:


> As someone who watched this take shape over many years, I would say that it was what it was before someone thought to slap a label on it.




My point is only that you and Hobo may _reasonably_ have differing opinions about exactly when the thing switched from being "some activity" to "The OSR". 

For example, it is not unreasonable to say that it really isn't big enough to consider a Named Thing until it got so big and active that those who _weren't_ specifically watching noticed it.  You may not agree, but it isn't an irrational position to hold.


----------



## Mark

JohnRTroy said:


> First of all, OSR is a nebulous name, it's either called "Revival" or "Renaissance" depending on who you ask.
> 
> The OSR as referenced to that seemed to be born out of a few things.  There were rule sets created to be clones of OD&D/AD&D coming out a few years ago.  I think the key critical mass came when EGG died and WoTC announced 4e, because the former gave us some introspection and thoughts towards the history of D&D, the latter I think caused a lot more alienation of older D&D fans because of all the changes.  It's sort of like a perfect storm came into place.
> 
> The key difference in the last few years is the proliferation of blogs (instead of message boards) reflecting on the past, along with the word being adopted.
> 
> It's hard to know if this is a sudden increase in activity is large or small.
> 
> I think a lot of additional stuff factors does involve the nostalgia element.  Note--this IS NOT A BAD THING, Nostalgia is not a dirty word unless it is used as such.  Part of the reality right now is that many of us who started in the very late 1970s to early 1980s are now approaching middle age.  That involves some reflection on the past--people revisiting their formative years.  That's why you see oldies focused on the music of 30-20 years ago as a key demographic.
> 
> And you will note this with some blogs.  While some blogs focus on general analysis, other talk about other things along with gaming like comics and "heavy metal".  That isn't really old-school.  (Most of the game creators weren't really into heavy metal like the adolescents who played it).
> 
> To be honest, I hate the term "old school" in itself because that's a colloquialism that seems fundamental opposed to the language of D&D, and to be represents the slang of the 80s generation.
> 
> We'll have to see how long the "R" part of the OSR lasts.  If it's something deeper than middle-age reflection and/or a fad, it'll likely last and grow stronger.  If not, it won't.
> 
> As long as people have fun, I don't care.





This is an interesting analysis.  It skips over people like myself who began playing D&D when it first came out (and who were gamers of other games [wargames, miniature wargames, etc.] prior to the advent of D&D in 1974).  It is interesting to me, when I go to play at Gencon, GaryCon, and other small conventions and gamedays, or when I glance over the many OSR blogs, to see that there is a gap in the references and language between my own memories and nostalgia (not a bad word) and that of the OSR.  I'm not an OSR guy myself, though I do check out the retro-clones when I get the chance, just like I check out systems from the 80s, 90s and newer for a session or two, just to enjoy them for what they are and to stay in touch with design trends, in general.

I played a handful of (O)D&D games just last weekend and have to say that most were run and had the same feel as games I recall playing even 35 years ago but the retro-clone games, as good as their intentions might be, seem to often miss the mark.  There was an impressionist once who used to do a great impersonation of a particular actor.  He did it so well that anyone else claiming to do an impression of that same actor was often really just doing an impersonation of the impressionist doing his impersonation of that actor.  Thus far the retro-clones have left me with the same feeling.  They are impressions of impressions (of impressions of etc.) and they are built to be that way, to emulate both the rules and the style of play the designers believe best capture what they felt when gaming (or approximate what they believe others are saying is what they felt when gaming).  When this is done by people who didn't have a similar background to the original designers and who came into gaming even as later renditions of the rules were being developed, it shows in the gameplay at the table.  It can still be a lot of fun but it isn't going to be quite the same.


----------



## Ourph

JohnRTroy said:


> I think the key critical mass came when EGG died and WoTC announced 4e, because the former gave us some introspection and thoughts towards the history of D&D, the latter I think caused a lot more alienation of older D&D fans because of all the changes.



The OSR exists because people were ALREADY alienated from WotC's version of D&D ca. 2005. Really, no really, it has nothing to do with 4e. The people blogging about OS games and making retroclones were alienated by 3e, not 4e.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat

Ourph said:


> The OSR exists because people were ALREADY alienated from WotC's version of D&D ca. 2005. Really, no really, it has nothing to do with 4e. The people blogging about OS games and making retroclones were alienated by 3e, not 4e.



This.


----------



## Mark

The OSR exists because of 3E, 4E, and even non-D&D games that were not satisfying the itch OSR games try to scratch.  All games not scratching that itch reinforce the void which OSR games attempt to fill.  To try and point only to one specific game would suggest a consensus that clearly doesn't exist in the OSR movement.


----------



## Ourph

Mark said:


> The OSR exists because of 3E, 4E, and even non-D&D games that were not satisfying the itch OSR games try to scratch.  All games not scratching that itch reinforce the void which OSR games attempt to fill.  To try and point only to one specific game would suggest a consensus that clearly doesn't exist in the OSR movement.



The fact that the OSR was born on internet messageboards and blogs dedicated to pre-3e versions of D&D suggests otherwise.


----------



## Mark

Ourph said:


> The fact that the OSR was born on internet messageboards and blogs dedicated to pre-3e versions of D&D suggests otherwise.





The fact that 3E didn't/doesn't exist in a vacumn and that the OSR didn't stop existing when any other RPG came out, including 4E, alongside the fact that the OSR isn't the invention of a single person, suggests you are missing the larger picture.


----------



## Ourph

Mark said:


> The fact that 3E didn't/doesn't exist in a vacumn and that the OSR didn't stop existing when any other RPG came out, including 4E, alongside the fact that the OSR isn't the invention of a single person, suggests you are missing the larger picture.



1 - I never suggested the OSR was the invention of a single person. I have, in fact, been saying the exact opposite in this thread.

2 - The point I am making is that the release of 4e was not a major impetus in the development of the OSR, not that nobody on the face of the earth was every disillusioned by 4e and decided to go back and play pre-2000 editions of D&D.

3 - If you disagree with #2, please point out a few of the significant OSR blogs, message boards or product lines whose owners/creators specifically credit the release of 4e as a significant impetus for their renewed interest in talking about, playing and producing material for OS games.


----------



## Mark

Ourph said:


> 1 - I never suggested the OSR was the invention of a single person. I have, in fact, been saying the exact opposite in this thread.
> 
> 2 - The point I am making is that the release of 4e was not a major impetus in the development of the OSR, not that nobody on the face of the earth was every disillusioned by 4e and decided to go back and play pre-2000 editions of D&D.
> 
> 3 - If you disagree with #2, please point out a few of the significant OSR blogs, message boards or product lines whose owners/creators specifically credit the release of 4e as a significant impetus for their renewed interest in talking about, playing and producing material for OS games.





No need for number three since if 4E had been a retro-clone of 1E AD&D the OSR movement would likely have stopped in its tracks.  Your original statement "The OSR exists because people were ALREADY alienated from WotC's version of D&D ca. 2005. Really, no really, it has nothing to do with 4e." is about why it "exists" and part of that is because of 4E being how it is (along with other non-D&D games not filling the needs of OSR pundits).  I even say further that if there were non-D&D alternatives that already did what retro-clones do, people would have turned to them rather than (re)inventing impersonations of wheels.  Furthermore, it has to be noted that the mere proliferation of all the retro-clones that exist, from C&C to S&W to LL to OSRIC to the game that Joseph Goodman is playtesting proves that not only can no single game scratch the itch but, inversely, no single game can have caused the itch to exist and need scratching.  It's like saying that a new beverage came into existence because people don't like Coke when obviously they must also not like Pepsi or any number of other existing beverages to not simply turn toward one of the alternatives.


----------



## Ourph

Mark said:


> No need for number three since if 4E had been a retro-clone of 1E AD&D the OSR movement would likely have stopped in its tracks.



If you think WotC reproducing 1e AD&D would have meant the "end" of the OSR, then we obviously have a very different perspective on what the OSR is. I think in most people's opinion, the world's biggest RPG publisher going back to an old school ruleset as their flagship game would have been seen as the biggest OSR triumph imaginable.



> Your original statement "The OSR exists because people were ALREADY alienated from WotC's version of D&D ca. 2005. Really, no really, it has nothing to do with 4e." is about why it "exists" and part of that is because of 4E being how it is (along with other non-D&D games not filling the needs of OSR pundits).



Then please, point out bloggers, authors or publishers involved in the OSR who specifically credit the release of 4e as a major impetus in their decision to play, talk about or write for OSR games. I could claim that the Saints winning the Superbowl this year was a major impetus for the OSR but saying it doesn't make it so.



> no single game can have caused the itch to exist and need scratching.



I never said that a single game "caused the itch". The cause of the itch is that old school games are cool games and people still enjoy playing them after 20-30 years.

What I am saying is that a single game (4e) was not a major impetus for the OSR as others have claimed.


----------



## Ariosto

From what I have seen, Advanced/Basic/Original players and 3e players overwhelmingly parted ways long ago. I can think of one exception who stuck with 3e until 3.5, then gave C&C a try, then went back to AD&D -- and ended up discovering and adopting OD&D tailored to his taste.

No doubt there have been other "late abandoners", and even some folks who decided their "new edition" would be an old one or retro-clone instead of 4e. 

However, the online reaction that I saw, at "old school" sites, to the announcement of 4e was pretty much a dismissal of "more of the same". The significant differences from 3e just meant that -- where there had been some conversion of 3e modules -- the new game apparently offered _nothing_ of practical interest. There was a brief upturn in WotC-bashing, mostly recycling the same old complaints.

Nothing of any great import in the "OSR" comes to my mind as having squat to do with that blip on the radar.

Some of us "oldies" play 4e on occasion. There may have been a slight increase in people "coming over" from 3e. Then again, it might just be an upward fluctuation in the frequency of those who right away wheel out their proposals to "improve" the old game by making it more like 3e.

*Quite apart from*, and oblivious to, the OSR, there are of course players playing what they like to play. In my current face-to-face group, a couple have never played a WotC edition. Another has a collection of WotC's plastic miniatures, but has played 3e only once and 4e not at all. About all they know is what they see when they go to conventions, and that doesn't look like what they want.


----------



## Mark

Ourph said:


> If you think WotC reproducing 1e AD&D would have meant the "end" of the OSR, then we obviously have a very different perspective on what the OSR is. I think in most people's opinion, the world's biggest RPG publisher going back to an old school ruleset as their flagship game would have been seen as the biggest OSR triumph imaginable.





I think that if WotC were giving certain OSR D&Ders the D&D they wished to play as a contemporary game and supporting it (and doing it well) then the OSR would not exist as we know it now, except maybe as the OSRPGA. 




Ourph said:


> Then please, point out bloggers, authors or publishers involved in the OSR who specifically credit the release of 4e as a major impetus in their decision to play, talk about or write for OSR games. I could claim that the Saints winning the Superbowl this year was a major impetus for the OSR but saying it doesn't make it so.





If the OSR was only about bloggers and authors and publishers your request would make sense.  My beverage analogy is an apt one.




Ourph said:


> I never said that a single game "caused the itch". The cause of the itch is that old school games are cool games and people still enjoy playing them after 20-30 years.
> 
> What I am saying is that a single game (4e) was not a major impetus for the OSR as others have claimed.





If that last line was what you wrote in the first place, we would not be haivg this divergent discussion.  What you said was that 4E has nothing to do with why the OSR exists.  "The OSR exists because people were ALREADY alienated from WotC's version of D&D ca. 2005. Really, no really, it has nothing to do with 4e."


----------



## Ariosto

Mark said:
			
		

> Furthermore, it has to be noted that the mere proliferation of all the retro-clones that exist, from C&C to S&W to LL to OSRIC to the game that Joseph Goodman is playtesting proves that not only can no single game scratch the itch but, inversely, no single game can have caused the itch to exist and need scratching.



The original D&D set of 1974 started the contagion that has been spreading ever since, and there are as many ways to scratch as there are individuals. 

D&D in turn started as Dave Arneson's "house rules" for Gygax's and Perren's _Chainmail_, in a hobby that had up to that point been made up of very little _other than_ "house" rules sets -- and to this day produces even more than the ever-flowing stream to be found online.

With the computers, Internet, print on demand, and so on that we have today, publication is extremely easy!

The OGL, and the material released under it, also helped a bit in opening floodgates that were more tightly held back in the days of Dave Hargrave's _Arduin Grimoire_.


----------



## Reynard

I think we are using the "OSR" term in different ways and therefore causing some confusion, so I'll clarify my ealier statement:

While there have been people "keeping the flame alive" of original editions since they were first replaced, it was a confluence of events including EGG's death, and the announcement of 4E and revelations of its inherent differences -- even moreso than 3E -- from "traditional D&D", that brought a big enough portion of the fanbase out into the open to create something resembling a movement. If 4E had hewed more closely to its roots, or if EGG had lived longer and continued to produce work with Troll Lords, the "OSR" would have remained on the fringes, apparent only to those that already had an interest in Old School gaming, and we wouldn't be talking about it, because it wouldn't have a name as such.


----------



## JohnRTroy

> The OSR exists because people were ALREADY alienated from WotC's version of D&D ca. 2005. Really, no really, it has nothing to do with 4e. The people blogging about OS games and making retroclones were alienated by 3e, not 4e.




Keep in mind I am talking about the "R"--the reference to revival-Renaissance.  The term OSR only appeared a few years ago, I don't even believe it was used before Gygax's death.  I never heard it before that.  And I used the term "critical mass" 



> This is an interesting analysis. It skips over people like myself who began playing D&D when it first came out (and who were gamers of other games [wargames, miniature wargames, etc.] prior to the advent of D&D in 1974). It is interesting to me, when I go to play at Gencon, GaryCon, and other small conventions and gamedays, or when I glance over the many OSR blogs, to see that there is a gap in the references and language between my own memories and nostalgia (not a bad word) and that of the OSR




I remember Ryan Dancey saying that there were a few generations of D&D player, and he mentioned the two first ones were yours (those that were wargamers who saw D&D rise from that environment), and the generation of gamers who came from the rise of TSR and entering the recently established RPG market.  And if we assume most of the wargaming hobby consisted of older gents, there's definitely a generation gap involved.

I skipped that generation because I think it's mostly people from the 2nd generation who are part of this revival.  Keep in mind the whole OSR term itself seems to have been coined from the fans themselves, and I am not sure if it's an accurate description of what's going on.  (For instance, did the movement get "bigger" or is there just more activity from bloggers and self-publishers).


----------



## Ariosto

Reynard said:
			
		

> If 4E had hewed more closely to its roots, or if EGG had lived longer and continued to produce work with Troll Lords, the "OSR" would have remained on the fringes, apparent only to those that already had an interest in Old School gaming, and we wouldn't be talking about it, because it wouldn't have a name as such.



That, I think, is just bizarre. From what I have seen, the movement was and is mostly made up of people who care no more about ENworld's recognition than ENworlders typically care about their stuff getting mentioned at Dragonsfoot. The notion that people posting about it here somehow validates it as a "real" movement is absurd.

I don't know for sure when or where the OSR name first caught on. The earliest usage of the phrase "old school renaissance" I found in a quick search at DF was a post of June 25, 2005 in the thread "Is True 20 Mustling In on C&C's Turf?": 







			
				Guest said:
			
		

> An old school renaissance could be on the horizon.



.

The next was on July 22, 2006, in a thread on "old school art":







			
				T.Foster said:
			
		

> Yeah, we've seen a lot of really good art recently -- the OSRIC cover and 'art festival' stuff, gleepwurp's stuff, the art in BFRPG and recent DF publications, and of course Jason Braun and Jim Holloway's art in RJK's new module. After, essentially, 20+ years in the desert, it's nice to see this sudden flood of new art that "gets it," and not just from 1 or 2 artists, but from lots of different folks. It's almost enough to make me think that this "old school renaissance" might turn out to be the real thing after all...




The year 2006 saw, if memory serves, the first widely published versions of BFRPG and OSRIC. Labyrinth Lord followed in 2007, Swords & Wizardry in 2008.

WotC announced 4e at GenCon in August of 2007.


----------



## Ourph

Reynard said:


> it was a confluence of events including EGG's death, and the announcement of 4E and revelations of its inherent differences -- even moreso than 3E -- from "traditional D&D"




What you're saying is that the OSR basically gained strength through negativity. I've never seen that. In fact, most of the OSR blogs and messageboards had a few posts/threads about 4e right after it first came out and everybody was talking about it and then dropped the subject to focus on the games that OSR people actually care about.

The OSR is based on people who think the old games are still awesome and who still have fun playing and writing about them. Since WotC isn't a publisher for those games, they really haven't been a player in the OSR. The one thing that WotC have done that really affected the OSR was releasing the OGL/SRD, which made the retroclones possible. Other than that, I don't think the OSR is really that cognizant of what WotC is doing.

The fact that Mike Mearls and some of the other 4e designers have been rediscovering OD&D in the past few years even argues that it's the OSR influencing WotC, rather than the other way around.


----------



## darjr

I know quite a few people, on line and locally, that went back to look at older D&D in part because of 4e, not in spite of it.

It often gets dismissed in the strum and tumult on the internet, but I think there are a great many of us that appreciate old school D&D and 4e. In fact I know it goes right to the heart of the 4e design team itself. It seems that those of us who do are dismissed in many, not quite correct, ways, but we undeniably exist.


----------



## Raven Crowking

For me, it was the discussion of game design philosophy related to 4e that made me stop and think, "These WotC guys just don't understand D&D".  The "fixes" to the "problems" didn't understand what the problems were, or else failed to understand the underlying causes of the problems.

The more I read about WotC's "fixes", the more I realized that AD&D (or earlier) had already fixed the same problems, a long time ago, and it was design decisions in 3e that made them occur in the first place.

Of course, this is my perspective....based on what "D&D" means to me....and it made me realize that, while there are mechanical things I like about WotC-D&D, overall I prefer TSR-D&D.  And hence the desire to create a fusion of WotC-era mechanics with TSR-era philosophy.

YMMV, and all that.


RC


----------



## Garthanos

Raven Crowking said:


> The more I read about WotC's "fixes", the more I realized that AD&D (or earlier) had already fixed the same problems, a long time ago, and it was design decisions in 3e that made them occur in the first place.
> RC




I am going to focus on something I do agree about what you just said...  4e actually re-embraced elements of AD&D and I would say even more fully embraced them. 

An easy example is niche protection.

Another easy example is abstract hit points (abstract hit points should indeed recover with something approaching scene or episodic frequency ).

A less easy one is something I may have to explain. I will call it Combat Style 

When I first saw to hit and damage being based entirely on strength I thought that sounded incredibly silly.... even just a minor amount of martial arts background... ought to have brought vastly differing conclusions but what if ... Strength is just one style? like Hard and Soft style martial arts in the real world... even hard versus soft is a uber simplification... that could be generalized .... some arts might emphasize creativity or discipline more? Some might emphasize perception or deception. Constitution allowing the instinct to override perceptions... and those with higher stamina.. playing out the battle so they have advantage over the burst strength dude whose ability fades over the course of the fight.  

Winners play to there own strengths and there are incredibly many ways to do things. 4e took that element which may even have seemed minor... and carried out its implications in a way that gives me more.


----------



## Umbran

Ariosto said:


> The notion that people posting about it here somehow validates it as a "real" movement is absurd.




Not at all, to me. "Movements" don't sit quietly in their rooms playing with their own toys.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Garthanos,

Suffice it to say that we disagree about a few things on your list, and leave it at that.    There's no reason to reopen old arguments.  So long as you are happy with the game you are playing, that's all that counts.

For me, what the OSR is about is being happy with the game you are playing, pure and simple.  I went back and reread my AD&D 1e books, and I played some Basic Fantasy with my 10-year old daughter.  It was nice playing something a bit less complicated than 3e, but it still didn't quite satisfy my itch.

The chief tenet of OS games, IMHO, has always been:  The game is yours; if you don't like something, change it.  And that is what has engaged as much free time as I can spare for the last year or so.....making the system fit me as much as I am able.  

And that, IMHO, is where *all* editions of D&D meet -- they are _*all*_ someone's (or someones') attempt to make a system that fits their needs.  

But just as it would be foolish of me to assume that your needs will be met by 1e, it is foolish of anyone to assume that 4e will meet any specific person's needs.  Or RCFG.  Or Labyrinth Lord.  Or whatever.

Play what you like.

That's what the OSR is about, AFAICT and IMHO.


RC


----------



## Desdichado

The Shaman said:


> So I don't know where you get the idea that I, or anyone else, was conflating persisting interest in older games with as what has come to be called the OSR.



From the post I responded to.  :shrug:  But it's not a big deal; I was just clarifying my opinion on it.


----------



## Garthanos

Raven Crowking said:


> For me, what the OSR is about is being happy with the game you are playing, pure and simple.



That definition  ...makes it a bit close to... meaningless.

ASIDE:
The Basic Roleplaying I know of is the underlying game of RuneQuest... The BRP part was very easy to improvise ... I have seen BRP mentioned recently is that what is being referred to? or is this BD&D.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Garthanos said:


> That definition  ...makes it a bit close to... meaningless.




That's not a definition; that's a motivation.

(And Basic Fantasy RPG is a retroclone, Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game)


RC


----------



## Garthanos

The Basic RPG = 

Basic Roleplaying: Chaosium RPG System Core Rulebook - Chaosium - RPG at CoolStuffInc.com


----------



## TerraDave

*The point of alienation*

was somewhere between here:









and here:







The rise of a "lets go really far back and make 500 blogs about it" movement is something else.


----------



## TerraDave

The OSR is about going way back. Not just pre 3E. 

To go back to my point upthread: what was amazing was how so many people rallied around 3E, including many who had stopped playing D&D for years. 

Fragementation into camps, thats the norm. But you really weren't hearing so much about the OSR for years after 3E came out. Maybe its complexities and style issues drove people back, but it took a _while_.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Ourph said:


> What you're saying is that the OSR basically gained strength through negativity. I've never seen that. In fact, most of the OSR blogs and messageboards had a few posts/threads about 4e right after it first came out and everybody was talking about it and then dropped the subject to focus on the games that OSR people actually care about.
> 
> The OSR is based on people who think the old games are still awesome and who still have fun playing and writing about them.




The problem is from what I've seen, the OSR is not just about "being positive".  Even in the early days of Dragonsfoot there is a lot of put-downs and angry vibes, such as people who are immature enough to use the terms "threetard" and "fouron", use terms like TETSNBN for 3e, etc.  I mean, if you think edition wars are bad here, just go to any OSR.  (And now there are forums who consider Dragonsfoot "too liberal" for their edition conservatism).  

There can be a serious amount of bitterness and mean streak to the OSR at times, which I think corrupts the movement.  It's sort of the shadows around the light of playing games that turns me off a bit.


----------



## Raven Crowking

JohnRTroy said:


> The problem is from what I've seen, the OSR is not just about "being positive".  Even in the early days of Dragonsfoot there is a lot of put-downs and angry vibes, such as people who are immature enough to use the terms "threetard" and "fouron", use terms like TETSNBN for 3e, etc.  I mean, if you think edition wars are bad here, just go to any OSR.  (And now there are forums who consider Dragonsfoot "too liberal" for their edition conservatism).
> 
> There can be a serious amount of bitterness and mean streak to the OSR at times, which I think corrupts the movement.  It's sort of the shadows around the light of playing games that turns me off a bit.




It's a good thing, then, that there are no similar claims about nostalgic grognards with rose-coloured glasses trying to be 14 again for those comments to be a reaction to.......  

IME, most OSR boards lock topics related to WotC-D&D, regardless of their spin.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Raven Crowking said:


> It's a good thing, then, that there are no similar claims about nostalgic grognards with rose-coloured glasses trying to be 14 again for those comments to be a reaction to.......
> 
> IME, most OSR boards lock topics related to WotC-D&D, regardless of their spin.




Well, if you're addressing my comments, I never used the term nostalgia as a "dirty word", and I believe part of what's just been called the "500 blogger" movement is in part a reflection of that nostalgia.  I think there's a knee-jerk defensive reaction to use of that word.  

Too many fans of these entertainments want to write polemics explaining in objective terms why their version is superior.  If you are the type that tries to say "everything was better" in the old days, including things like the art and desktop publishing of the games, I think the person might not be looking at the core.  There is that sort of element I see, and it's okay to critique it a bit, and I think it's important to understand part of the primal psychology of your personal "golden age".

But saying something is based in part on nostalgia is certainly not the same as using terms like 3tard/4on--it would be the equivalent of coming up with a bad name.

And that doesn't mean the new fans get the pass...there's always a tendency to think new is better, and that everybody else is an old "stuck in the past" kind of person.  It's important to listen to the wisdom of the elders at times, and understand the difference between bitterness and real, honest, criticism.

Basically, I think the root of all edition wars right now, from old to new fans, is some level of insecurity and a need to see the other version of D&D as "the enemy".  If we could eliminate that, I think the general gaming culture would be a lot better.  Instead of having separate forums where people throw brickbats at the other guy, it would be nice to be able to group together and discuss our common bonds, and seriously be able to critique styles of play without making personal attacks and without interpreting criticism as personal attacks.  

But I have a sad feeling that won't happen.


----------



## Ourph

JohnRTroy said:


> The problem is from what I've seen, the OSR is not just about "being positive".  Even in the early days of Dragonsfoot there is a lot of put-downs and angry vibes, such as people who are immature enough to use the terms "threetard" and "fouron", use terms like TETSNBN for 3e, etc.  I mean, if you think edition wars are bad here, just go to any OSR.  (And now there are forums who consider Dragonsfoot "too liberal" for their edition conservatism).
> 
> There can be a serious amount of bitterness and mean streak to the OSR at times, which I think corrupts the movement.  It's sort of the shadows around the light of playing games that turns me off a bit.



I won't deny that there are edition-warriors and haters who also esteem (or at least claim to esteem) OS games. But I don't think the "resurgence" or "revival" or "rennaissance" (whatever you want the "R" to mean) is based on that kind of negativity. I don't think we would have seen a new publishing genre develop around a community whose only unifying feature was "Game X sucks". The unifying feature is "Game A rocks!" and the "Game X sucks" aspect is a vocal minority that people tend to pay attention to because they're being provocative and rude.

In fact, a bitter gamer sitting at his keyboard typing about how much 2e or 3e or 4e sucks is, IMO, the antithesis of the OSR. The OSR is about people being excited about OS games, playing OS games, writing about OS games, making new products for OS games and buying the new stuff. If someone is spending all of their time talking about how much 3e or 4e sucks, they are, QED, not talking about the positive aspects of OS games and therefore not part of any kind of "revival".


----------



## Raven Crowking

JohnRTroy said:


> But saying something is based in part on nostalgia is certainly not the same as using terms like 3tard/4on




We both know that it is exactly the same for some people.

It is sad but true that many gamers feel the need to defend not only the games they enjoy, but also the enjoyment they have from those games.

It is a good thing that there are lots of games out there, so that most folks can find something to satisfy their gaming urge, but far too many of us (and probably most of us, at one time or another) wonder (vocally) why anyone would like Game X (as opposed to Game Y, which we like).

All too often, gamers are their own worst enemy.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Ourph said:


> "Game X sucks" aspect is a vocal minority that people tend to pay attention to because they're being provocative and rude.




And, on some boards, because they gain dignatis.  


RC


----------



## Desdichado

Raven Crowking said:


> It's a good thing, then, that there are no similar claims about nostalgic grognards with rose-coloured glasses trying to be 14 again for those comments to be a reaction to.......



I've been trying to be 14 again ever since I grew old enough to realize how good I had it when I was 14.  So... twenty years or so?

Well, maybe 16.  Let's face it; I'd be frustrated with having to bum rides off my mom again.

I'm honestly a bit confused on the whole issue of nostalgia and why the OSR (speaking generically) gets so offended by that claim.  Just because I don't particularly like old rule systems very much doesn't mean that I don't appreciate a good bit of nostalgia.  I've never seen that as a bad thing.  But for some reason there's a strong vibe in the OSR that that's not only a terrible thing, but also dreadfully insulting to insinuate.  I'd love to have someone explain that posture to me, because frankly, it doesn't make a lick of sense.


----------



## Desdichado

Raven Crowking said:


> And, on some boards, because they gain dignatis.



I think you mean rep.  Dignitas is specific to Circvs Maximvs, because of the Roman forum theme, but nobody gets dignitas for edition warring at Circvs Maximvs.  Edition warriors tend to get insulted right and left for being socially and intellectually bankrupt.

Except in much more colorful language.


----------



## Garthanos

cross thread insanity deleted


----------



## Ourph

Hobo said:


> But for some reason there's a strong vibe in the OSR that that's not only a terrible thing, but also dreadfully insulting to insinuate.  I'd love to have someone explain that posture to me, because frankly, it doesn't make a lick of sense.



I think the reason that word touches off so many strong reactions is that this...

"The only way to overlook the glaring faults of (insert OS game here) is if you are looking at your experience through rose-colored glasses"

... has been a pretty common edition-warring tactic for many years. Thus, "nostalgia" became a hot-button word even when used non-pejoratively. I, personally, would agree with your analysis that nostalgia can be a positive thing and I have no doubt that nostalgia plays a big part in getting people to pick up their old gaming materials and give them a try again. However, nostalgia is by definition a feeling you have about something from your past. It can't explain ...

a) Why people who pick up OS games they played in the past, have fun with them in the present.
b) Why some gamers never stopped playing OS games and have continuously running games or campaigns that span decades of play.
c) Why a new player who plays an OS game for the first time has fun with it.

So, while there is no doubt in my mind that nostalgia is a boon to the OSR in many ways, I think people who trot it out as the main reason for the OSR are mistaken. Nostalgia alone might tempt someone to pick up an OS game and play it for one session, but if that person continues to play the game or decides to blog about the game or write new adventures and supplements for the game, it's more than just nostalgia at that point, it's a genuine enjoyment of the game that has nothing to do with skewed perceptions or self delusion (which is what the whole "rose-colored glasses" comment is meant to imply).


----------



## rogueattorney

Hobo said:


> I'm honestly a bit confused on the whole issue of nostalgia and why the OSR (speaking generically) gets so offended by that claim.  Just because I don't particularly like old rule systems very much doesn't mean that I don't appreciate a good bit of nostalgia.  I've never seen that as a bad thing.  But for some reason there's a strong vibe in the OSR that that's not only a terrible thing, but also dreadfully insulting to insinuate.  I'd love to have someone explain that posture to me, because frankly, it doesn't make a lick of sense.




"The only reason anyone likes 4e is because it's 'the new and shiny.'  Just wait until the bloom is off the rose..."

Understand now?


----------



## The Shaman

rogueattorney said:


> "The only reason anyone likes 4e is because it's 'the new and shiny.'  Just wait until the bloom is off the rose..."
> 
> Understand now?



"You must spread some Experience Points around . . . "


----------



## jdrakeh

Look, nobody here has been straight with you so far. The OSR isn't about getting back to basics, older editions of D&D, or even older roleplaying games in general. No, it's really about one thing, but a lot of people don't talk about it because it's not popular. So, what is the OSR about? _*Eating babies.*_ That's right. You heard it here first.


----------



## jdrakeh

JohnRTroy said:


> (And now there are forums who consider Dragonsfoot "too liberal" for their edition conservatism).




Holy crap! Really?


----------



## rogueattorney

I think one of the things that people are missing with regard to aspects of the OSR is that there is a real "DIY" or "indie" strain to it.  It has largely been about hobbyists publishing for other hobbyists with a decent amount of skepticism towards "professional" designers and any centralization of the movement.

I think this indie strain came from about a half decade of pre-3e fans hoping that the professionals would "do it right" and then being repeatedly disappointed with the effort - from 3e to Hackmaster to Necromancer to C&C - and deciding to just do it themselves.  I actually think there's a pretty big divide in the pre-3e D&D community, albeit a subtle one, between those who still yearn for "official recognition" and those who've said "F--- it, we can do it better than they would anyway."

Thus, regarding what some others had posited abot a hypothetical 4e that was closer in spirit to 1e...  Really, by 2008, that ship had already sailed as far as any of the _producers_ of OSR materials were concerned.  What WotC or really any mainstream producer of D&D-ish materials was doing at that point was so far off the radar, they were going to be putting out their own materials no matter what, audience or no.

Now, what 4e has done is it's put the wind in the sails in terms of audience for the OSR products.  Those fed up with 3e but disappointed in 4e had one more place to look.  So, while the OSR'ers had been there for 3 or 4 years already producing tons of materials (one example: 30 adventure modules for OSRIC alone had come out prior to 4e being published), a lot of people only discovered them when they decided to see what else was out there after 4e came out.


----------



## Ourph

rogueattorney said:


> Now, what 4e has done is it's put the wind in the sails in terms of audience for the OSR products.  Those fed up with 3e but disappointed in 4e had one more place to look.  So, while the OSR'ers had been there for 3 or 4 years already producing tons of materials (one example: 30 adventure modules for OSRIC alone had come out prior to 4e being published), a lot of people only discovered them when they decided to see what else was out there after 4e came out.



That's a nice story in theory, but is that what really happened? I haven't, for example, heard any tales of OSR publishers seeing a spike in sales after 4e came out or OSR bloggers seeing a big spike in readership or OSR websites seeing a big influx of new posters. From my perspective, the OSR pretty much kept chugging along right through the release of 4e without noticing much. If someone has some actual examples of 4e dissatisfaction contributing to the success of the OSR, I'd love to hear about them.


----------



## Maggan

rogueattorney said:


> I think one of the things that people are missing with regard to aspects of the OSR is that there is a real "DIY" or "indie" strain to it.  It has largely been about hobbyists publishing for other hobbyists with a decent amount of skepticism towards "professional" designers and any centralization of the movement.




I've seen this mentioned elsewhere, and I don't really understand how the OSR sees DIY as one of "their" things. The DIY gene is ingrained in gamer culture, and the designers of 3e, Hackmaster and every other rpg, got to be designers because they started saying "I can do this" and hacking away at their typewriters or word processors.

Don't get me wrong, I realise that the DIY thing is big with the OSR, and there are lots of things to be proud of, but to me, DIY is something I connect with all rpgs, be they New School or Old School. People have been saying "I can do this better than the professionals" since the dawn of our hobby, and many have shown it to be true, among others plenty of OSR efforts over the last years, but also tons of other stuff before that.

Maybe it's because I see myself as both a DIY writer and a professional designer that I don't get the distinction between the two. When I design for commercial games, I write together with others stuff that I come up with. Just like when I write for myself.

Of course, when I write for myself, the publishing venue is not a printed book, but a blog, but apart from that, it's the same thing to me.

Maybe I'm just confused. Wouldn't be the first time. 

/M


----------



## Ariosto

Hobo said:
			
		

> I'd love to have someone explain that posture to me, because frankly, it doesn't make a lick of sense.



It's the "*JUST* nostalgia" put-down, as in, "There's no reason except nostalgia to play such an objectively poorly designed and clearly less fun game."

That's quite a different matter from preferring something in any case because one finds it to be of better quality, and so having nostalgia for a time when the better quality was more common.

For example, if there's too little bandwidth on a digital telephone network to match the audio quality one formerly enjoyed on an analog system -- then a preference for the older situation is not "just nostalgia".


----------



## Desdichado

Ourph said:


> However, nostalgia is by definition a feeling you have about something from your past. It can't explain ...
> 
> a) Why people who pick up OS games they played in the past, have fun with them in the present.
> b) Why some gamers never stopped playing OS games and have continuously running games or campaigns that span decades of play.
> c) Why a new player who plays an OS game for the first time has fun with it.
> 
> So, while there is no doubt in my mind that nostalgia is a boon to the OSR in many ways, I think people who trot it out as the main reason for the OSR are mistaken.



I certainly haven't read _every_ OSR themed blog, but most of the ones I have read were more to the tune of "I played 2e, and 3e, and looked at 4e, and then realized that what I really wanted was to get back to basics."  Or folks who got out of gaming entirely and then came back to 1e.  Or some variation on that theme.

I have no doubt that what you're referring to has happened plenty.  But I doubt that the majority of OSR folks started with old-school games _now_, or have played OD&D campaign continuously, or whatever. 


rogueattorney said:


> "The only reason anyone likes 4e is because it's 'the new and shiny.'  Just wait until the bloom is off the rose..."
> 
> Understand now?



No.  Is that supposed to be insulting or something?  Should I feel offended?  Even if I played 4e, I mean?

If that's what I'm supposed to understand, what I"m getting from it is that OSR-themed folks who get offended by "accusations" of nostalgia are a bunch of hypersensitive crybabies.  Since I'm assuming that's not what you're attempting to convey, maybe you can come up with a better example?

EDIT: Y'know what?  Scratch that.  That was a bit needlessly obtuse for no good reason other than I was feeling pissy.  OK, yeah, that is a bit condescending.  I still am surprised by the reaction to it, though.

Plus the counter example is hampered by the fact that 4e isn't really _that_ new anymore.  That must be one heckuva shine.  Again; not that I play 4e or anything, because I've actually managed to avoid it almost completely.  But, anyway...

I see your point, I guess.  It just fails to completely convey to me the apparent depth of the insult that many people demonstrably feel when being told that they're nostalgic.


----------



## Ourph

Hobo said:


> I certainly haven't read _every_ OSR themed blog, but most of the ones I have read were more to the tune of "I played 2e, and 3e, and looked at 4e, and then realized that what I really wanted was to get back to basics."  Or folks who got out of gaming entirely and then came back to 1e.  Or some variation on that theme.
> 
> I have no doubt that what you're referring to has happened plenty.  But I doubt that the majority of OSR folks started with old-school games _now_, or have played OD&D campaign continuously, or whatever.



I think I may have gotten sidetracked and done a poor job of explaining my main point, which is that the reason "nostalgia" is considered a bad word by many OS enthusiasts is that it's been used in a pejorative sense (i.e. "Your enjoyment of OS games is based on self delusion and selective memory") for so long in the edition wars. At this point, many consider any use of the word an attack. And yes, that probably makes those people over-sensitive. However, the first use of the word nostalgia in this thread looked pretty snarky to me, so maybe the sensitivity is justified in this case.


----------



## Filcher

TerraDave said:


> was somewhere between here:




God. Elmore in his prime was king of my childhood imagination.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Ourph said:


> I think I may have gotten sidetracked and done a poor job of explaining my main point, which is that the reason "nostalgia" is considered a bad word by many OS enthusiasts is that it's been used in a pejorative sense (i.e. "Your enjoyment of OS games is based on self delusion and selective memory") for so long in the edition wars. At this point, many consider any use of the word an attack. And yes, that probably makes those people over-sensitive. However, the first use of the word nostalgia in this thread looked pretty snarky to me, so maybe the sensitivity is justified in this case.




Well, as far as I am concerned, there is a sense of nostalgia in this that can be measured objectively.  I know I am not using the word with snark or as a pejorative, and I personally refuse to avoid every using that word just because some OS fans are considering it a virtual swear word.  

For instance, looking at the posts of Old School Blogs, some tend to have a pretty nostalgic theme.  For instance.

Jeffs Gameblog  -- Lots of referneces to things like metal and 80s cartoons and other things.

B/X BLACKRAZOR: Krull Campaign Setting  This also shows some nostalgic remembering of things like the movie krull.  Again, we're getting an 80s vibe here.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess -- Lots of references to Heavy Metal, and I find this on other blogs...http://lotfp.blogspot.com/

That doesn't mean that their views are solely based on nostalgia, nor does it mean that all bloggers are nostalgic, but I think part of the revival / Renaissance comes at least in part from many of us reaching 40 and reflecting on the past.  Why the sudden proliferation of these blogs, and the common themes?


----------



## Reynard

Hobo said:


> I'm honestly a bit confused on the whole issue of nostalgia and why the OSR (speaking generically) gets so offended by that claim.




Because reducing the enjoyment gotten from old school games to nostalgian suggests that those games themselves are not good games and that those that prefer them somehow don't "get it" in regards to new editions and games and why they are better/superior.

I like AD&D a lot. But I was just re-reading my 3.0 PHB and DMG (i lost my MM  ) and I realize that I like 3rd Edition a lot to. But I don't much like 3.5 or 4E. Am I just being nostalgiac? Or is it possible that 3.0 was better (for me, onbviously)?


----------



## Ariosto

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> Why the sudden proliferation of these blogs, and the common themes?



Might the "sudden proliferation" of OSR blogs have to do with the "sudden proliferation" of the OSR they're talking about? Isn't such proliferation characteristic of a renaissance?

Is it really more sudden than the proliferation of blogs about 3e or 4e? Of blogs in general?

2003: Google buys blogger.com
2004: Jeff's Gameblog starts at blogger.com

I don't have data on the rates of blog startups between then and now. I don't have data on the ages of the bloggers when they started their blogs. Maybe you have.

There were "old school D&D" Web sites of other sorts before the WebLog/Blog format came into vogue.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Ariosto said:


> Might the "sudden proliferation" of OSR blogs have to do with the "sudden proliferation" of the OSR they're talking about? Isn't such proliferation characteristic of a renaissance?




Well, yes, but you are missing the point I am trying to make in that, while I don't think nostalgia plays a role in everything involved, it's hard to ignore the nostalgic elements of some of the posters.   I think it's just as bad to say "this has absolutely nothing to do with it", as it is to say "it's all about nostalgia and nothing else".

As far as the blog explosion, a lot of the ones I mentioned seemed to start around 2008.  There seems to have been a rush to blogs in 2008, after the death of Gygax and the release of 4e.  I think something has kicked in, especially now that a lot of us have turned middle-aged.


----------



## Nikosandros

jdrakeh said:


> Holy crap! Really?



Quite so. You see, DF has this policy of allowing discussion about 2nd edition, C&C and D&D material in general produced after 1983. Such pernicious heresies can hardly be tolerated by the stalwart defenders of the one true faith...


----------



## Desdichado

Nikosandros said:


> Quite so. You see, DF has this policy of allowing discussion about 2nd edition, C&C and D&D material in general produced after 1983. Such pernicious heresies can hardly be tolerated by the stalwart defenders of the one true faith...



I haven't actually noticed if its literally the same people who get offended by the nostalgia claim and are most dogmatic about the game at the same time, but I frequently suspect that it is.

For a lot of OSR fans, no doubt, it's just about playing a game that they enjoy and hey!  It's exciting that there's this wave of support and commonality on the internet that they can turn to to improve their games.  More power to them!  That's exciting, even to me as someone who's not particularly interested in OS games.

There's a strong underlying subtext among several OSR blogs and posters and whatnot though, that's something altogether different.  Like you say, they see anything after 1983 as some kind of heresy.  To them, the OSR is about faithfully trying to recreate the environment and experience that Gygax or Arneson had.  Which... I guess more power to them too, and all, but it'd be nice if they could do that without the dogmatic and badwrongfun approach.  And trying to faithfully recreate a mid-70s gaming experience certainly is a nostalgic approach.  I don't know how it can be called anything else.


----------



## TerraDave

Glad someone noticed. 



Filcher said:


> God. Elmore in his prime was king of my childhood imagination.




Then you are probably not old-school enough for the OSR.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hobo said:


> Plus the counter example is hampered by the fact that 4e isn't really _that_ new anymore.  That must be one heckuva shine.





I have direct experience, on EN World, of making some criticisms of 3.x, being told by many folks that I was wrong, and watching those same folks say the criticisms were "obviously true and known all along by everyone" (or words to that effect) when WotC announced 4e (and at the same time said they were going to fix those very same problems).

4e is new until 5e is announced.  Then the shine will come off the bloom.


RC


----------



## Desdichado

Well, that's a good point.  I was surprised that so many people came out of the woodwork to criticize 3e after 4e was announced.  It felt like the dam had burst, or something.


----------



## TerraDave

rogueattorney said:


> I think one of the things that people are missing with regard to aspects of the OSR is that there is a real "DIY" or "indie" strain to it.  It has largely been about hobbyists publishing for other hobbyists with a decent amount of skepticism towards "professional" designers and any centralization of the movement.
> 
> I think this indie strain came from about a half decade of pre-3e fans hoping that the professionals would "do it right" and then being repeatedly disappointed with the effort - from 3e to Hackmaster to Necromancer to C&C - and deciding to just do it themselves.  I actually think there's a pretty big divide in the pre-3e D&D community, albeit a subtle one, between those who still yearn for "official recognition" and those who've said "F--- it, we can do it better than they would anyway."
> 
> Thus, regarding what some others had posited abot a hypothetical 4e that was closer in spirit to 1e...  Really, by 2008, that ship had already sailed as far as any of the _producers_ of OSR materials were concerned.  What WotC or really any mainstream producer of D&D-ish materials was doing at that point was so far off the radar, they were going to be putting out their own materials no matter what, audience or no.
> 
> Now, what 4e has done is it's put the wind in the sails in terms of audience for the OSR products.  Those fed up with 3e but disappointed in 4e had one more place to look.  So, while the OSR'ers had been there for 3 or 4 years already producing tons of materials (one example: 30 adventure modules for OSRIC alone had come out prior to 4e being published), a lot of people only discovered them when they decided to see what else was out there after 4e came out.




That is probably the best summary so far. 

But, the OSR blogosphere _is_ in part about remembering, touching back to the past, reviving the good old days, thinking what things would have been like if such and such did not happen, shedding the baggage that has come from following every new gaming trend...

I think there is a word for all this...


----------



## Nikosandros

Hobo said:


> I haven't actually noticed if its literally the same people who get offended by the nostalgia claim and are most dogmatic about the game at the same time, but I frequently suspect that it is.



Well, I think that in a few circumstances the reactions against the nostalgia claim have merit. I mean, as others have posted, it _is_ sometimes used in the context of _old games are bad, you like them only because of nostalgia._ But asides from that, I agree that nostalgia isn't a bad thing.



Hobo said:


> For a lot of OSR fans, no doubt, it's just about playing a game that they enjoy and hey!  It's exciting that there's this wave of support and commonality on the internet that they can turn to to improve their games.



Indeed, that's how it is for me. I love AD&D and I enjoy playing it. I make no claims about its superiority and I play it alongside other games such as 4e, Pathfinder and non-D&D games.



Hobo said:


> There's a strong underlying subtext among several OSR blogs and posters and whatnot though, that's something altogether different.  Like you say, they see anything after 1983 as some kind of heresy.  To them, the OSR is about faithfully trying to recreate the environment and experience that Gygax or Arneson had.  Which... I guess more power to them too, and all, but it'd be nice if they could do that without the dogmatic and badwrongfun approach.



This subtext certainly exists and I agree completely that we really don't need the ridiculous dogmatic approach.



Hobo said:


> And trying to faithfully recreate a mid-70s gaming experience certainly is a nostalgic approach.  I don't know how it can be called anything else.



Actually, a faithful recreation can be an intriguing proposition, if it is divorced from the dogmatism. I have never tried it myself (I much prefer my games to be very "contaminated"), but I can see the charm in it. OTOH, as you said, the dogmatism is almost always present in such endeavors.


----------



## The Shaman

Hobo said:


> And trying to faithfully recreate a mid-70s gaming experience certainly is a nostalgic approach.  I don't know how it can be called anything else.



Perhaps because it's not "a yearning for the past in idealized form."

It's New Coke and Old Coke.* I liked Old Coke. I tried New Coke. I didn't care for New Coke. I returned to drinking Old Coke.

That's not nostalgia for Old Coke. It's liking Old Coke better.

Is that really so hard to grasp?




* This is an analogy. I'm well aware that Classic Coke was not the same forumlation as Coke prior to the launch of New Coke. Please put your pedant stick away; that horse is dead and turned into a bottle of Elmer's already.


----------



## Desdichado

The Shaman said:


> Perhaps because it's not "a yearning for the past in idealized form."
> 
> It's New Coke and Old Coke.* I liked Old Coke. I tried New Coke. I didn't care for New Coke. I returned to drinking Old Coke.
> 
> That's not nostalgia for Old Coke. It's liking Old Coke better.
> 
> Is that really so hard to grasp?



It's perfectly easy to grasp, but that also doesn't describe the subset of bloggers/posters that I'm talking about.

It also doesn't explain why, when someone says, "dude, you're just nostalgic for Coke Classic!" that anyone's response to that would be to break out in some kind of Hulk-like rage.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hobo said:


> It's perfectly easy to grasp, but that also doesn't describe the subset of bloggers/posters that I'm talking about.




Quite likely not.  I am sure that there is an element of nostalgia in those blogs.  But, as one would not judge the gaming population by an EN World poll......



> It also doesn't explain why, when someone says, "dude, you're just nostalgic for Coke Classic!" that anyone's response to that would be to break out in some kind of Hulk-like rage.




I get that you are exaggerating for comedic effect, but.....the same thing happens when a comment is made off-hand that _*might*_ imply that certain current rulesets are less than perfect.

Let's face it, years of defending their interest in gaming has made some gamers....let's say, touchy....about their hobby.


RC


----------



## M.L. Martin

TerraDave said:


> Glad someone noticed.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are probably not old-school enough for the OSR.




   Anyone else think that there's a "Lost School" covering the late 1E/most of 2E/later BECMI material, with Elmore/Caldwell/Easley art (and others like Stephen Fabian, who's criminally underappreciated), more setting- and story-focused gaming, and a less nasty, brutish, swords & sorcery feel, that sort of gets lost amid the OSR, the 3E/Pathfinder, and the 4E groups? Or is it just me?


----------



## Reynard

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Anyone else think that there's a "Lost School" covering the late 1E/most of 2E/later BECMI material, with Elmore/Caldwell/Easley art (and others like Stephen Fabian, who's criminally underappreciated), more setting- and story-focused gaming, and a less nasty, brutish, swords & sorcery feel, that sort of gets lost amid the OSR, the 3E/Pathfinder, and the 4E groups? Or is it just me?




I don't think you are alone at all. i would guess a LOT of us got our start in the mid to late 80s, when BECMI and 2E *were* D&D. It so happens that I "discovered" AD&D 1E later and happened to prefer that style of play, but I am solidly a product of 80s TSR games.


----------



## The Shaman

Hobo said:


> It's perfectly easy to grasp, but that also doesn't describe the subset of bloggers/posters that I'm talking about.
> 
> It also doesn't explain why, when someone says, "dude, you're just nostalgic for Coke Classic!" that anyone's response to that would be to break out in some kind of Hulk-like rage.



Exaggerate much?

Oh, that's right, it _those other guys_ who are so dogmatic all the time. Not you.


----------



## Geoffrey

I like what Robert Conley says: "To me the Old School Renaissance is not about playing a particular set of rules in a particular way, the dungeon crawl. It about going back to the roots of our hobby and see what we could do differently. What avenues were not explored because of the commercial and personal interests of the game designers of the time."

Two of the OSR products that try to do that are:

1. my own Supplement V: CARCOSA, which gives a dark and weird science-fantasy spin to the 1974 Dungeons & Dragons game
Geoffrey McKinney's CARCOSA

2. James Raggi's Random Esoteric Creature Generator, which argues for dropping pretty much all traditional D&D monsters and replacing them with unique critters nobody has ever seen before:
Goodman Games


----------



## Desdichado

The Shaman said:


> Exaggerate much?
> 
> Oh, that's right, it _those other guys_ who are so dogmatic all the time. Not you.



Not really.  The dogmatism may not exactly be running rampant through the OSR, but it's prevalent enough that it's very difficult to miss.

If you want to deny that there's any such dogmatism, go ahead.  I'll just continue to have interesing the conversation I was having with Nikosandros and others who _do_ recognize it, before you showed up.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Dogmatism is hardly limited to proponents of games lacking that shiny new blush.  

Likewise lack of dogmatism.

You are using a brush that paints not only the object, but the painter as well.


RC


----------



## TerraDave

*This is what the OSR is about*



The Shaman said:


> "a yearning for the past in idealized form."




An almost perfect description of what I have seen in the OSR blagosphere. 

Well, this and recreating it. Before AD&D, Dragonlance, UA, 2E, or whatever sent things on the wrong path.


----------



## TerraDave

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Anyone else think that there's a "Lost School" covering the late 1E/most of 2E/later BECMI material, with Elmore/Caldwell/Easley art (and others like Stephen Fabian, who's criminally underappreciated), more setting- and story-focused gaming, and a less nasty, brutish, swords & sorcery feel, that sort of gets lost amid the OSR, the 3E/Pathfinder, and the 4E groups? Or is it just me?






Reynard said:


> I don't think you are alone at all. i would guess a LOT of us got our start in the mid to late 80s, when BECMI and 2E *were* D&D. It so happens that I "discovered" AD&D 1E later and happened to prefer that style of play, but I am solidly a product of 80s TSR games.




You mean, "middle school".

I think there is something to that.


----------



## Ourph

I think it's the "idealized" that people get stuck on. If I say I'm having fun playing 4e, nobody ever tells me that I'm "idealizing" my play experience. But if I'm having fun playing AD&D (i.e. actually playing, right now, at the present time, as in the guys came over last night for a game) people talk about nostalgia as if it has to be a major driving force. "Idealizing" a game that happened 20 years ago makes sense. Not so much the game I was having fun with last night*.

*To be truthful, it has actually been 34 nights since I last played AD&D. Still not long enough for nostalgia to set in IMO, but I wanted to be perfectly honest.


----------



## The Shaman

Ourph said:


> I think it's the "idealized" that people get stuck on. If I say I'm having fun playing 4e, nobody ever tells me that I'm "idealizing" my play experience. But if I'm having fun playing AD&D (i.e. actually playing, right now, at the present time, as in the guys came over last night for a game) people talk about nostalgia as if it has to be a major driving force. "Idealizing" a game that happened 20 years ago makes sense. Not so much the game I was having fun with last night*.
> 
> *To be truthful, it has actually been 34 nights since I last played AD&D. Still not long enough for nostalgia to set in IMO, but I wanted to be perfectly honest.



The Mingol speaks the truth.


----------



## Reynard

Geoffrey said:


> 2. James Raggi's Random Esoteric Creature Generator, which argues for dropping pretty much all traditional D&D monsters and replacing them with unique critters nobody has ever seen before:
> Goodman Games




I bought this on a whim.  It is awesome.

EDIT: i don't actually agree with the author on dumping humanoids for humans, though. "Fodder races" are useful in both advneture and milieu design. But dropping the medusa or otyugh for a random monstrosity, I'm all for.


----------



## Desdichado

Raven Crowking said:


> Dogmatism is hardly limited to proponents of games lacking that shiny new blush.
> 
> Likewise lack of dogmatism.
> 
> You are using a brush that paints not only the object, but the painter as well.



No, I'm really not.  Plus, I know that there are plenty of 4e crusaders who are just as dogmatic.  I'm not sure why you continue to insist on bringing that up, though.  It's not really the subject of the conversation.  I'd be more than happy to talk about 4e dogmatism... _in another thread that's about that._

Or Pathfinder dogmatism.  Or Cthulhu dogmatism (I actually have a genuine beef with these people, but that's neither here nor there.)  Or any other dogmatic schism.  

It just so happens that that's not the topic here today, though.


----------



## Ourph

Hobo said:


> It just so happens that that's not the topic here today, though.



OS dogmatism isn't really the topic either, but you keep bringing it up. Just as Pathfinder dogmatism doesn't define Pathfinder fandom, OS dogmatism doesn't define the OSR.


----------



## Desdichado

Ourph said:


> I think it's the "idealized" that people get stuck on. If I say I'm having fun playing 4e, nobody ever tells me that I'm "idealizing" my play experience. But if I'm having fun playing AD&D (i.e. actually playing, right now, at the present time, as in the guys came over last night for a game) people talk about nostalgia as if it has to be a major driving force. "Idealizing" a game that happened 20 years ago makes sense. Not so much the game I was having fun with last night*.
> 
> *To be truthful, it has actually been 34 nights since I last played AD&D. Still not long enough for nostalgia to set in IMO, but I wanted to be perfectly honest.



Let me make sure I'm understanding what you're talking about here.  Is it your claim that you can only idealize something abstract, something that you can't actually revisit?

That it'd be possible for me to idealize Mars but not Hawaii, because, heck, I just went to Hawaii a few months ago?  That I could idealize the golden age of piracy, because I could never gather a crew on a sailing ship and attack Spanish shipping lanes in the Carribean, but that I _couldn't_ idealize the 80s because it would be possible for me to grow a mullet, wear Oakleys, drive a Chevy I-ROC and listen to nothing by Ratt, Twisted Sister and Quiet Riot casette tapes?

Because if I did all of the above, I would be really hard-pressed to say that I didn't idealize the 80s.

Yet, if I'm understanding you correctly, that's exactly what you're trying to claim.


Ourph said:


> OS dogmatism isn't really the topic either, but you keep bringing it up. Just as Pathfinder dogmatism doesn't define Pathfinder fandom, OS dogmatism doesn't define the OSR.



I never claimed that it defined it, I merely claimed that there's a very noticeable element to it.  Unfortunately, it's a loud and noticeable enough element that from the outside looking in, it's sometimes the only thing that easy to see.

I don't for a minute believe that that's what the OSR _is_, but it certainly and absolutely is on topic for the question the thread asks.  In fact, I'm quite baffled that you would attempt to claim that it isn't.


----------



## Ourph

Hobo said:


> Let me make sure I'm understanding what you're talking about here.  Is it your claim that you can only idealize something abstract, something that you can't actually revisit?



That's not exactly it.



> That it'd be possible for me to idealize Mars but not Hawaii, because, heck, I just went to Hawaii a few months ago?



Again, not quite. I think a more apt analogy is that, you MIGHT BE idealizing Hawaii if you went there once a few years ago and remember enjoying it (note, MIGHT BE). However, It's very unlikely that you're idealizing it if you've gone there on vacation twice a year for the last 5 years and enjoyed the heck out of yourself every single time.



> I never claimed that it defined it, I merely claimed that there's a very noticeable element to it.  Unfortunately, it's a loud and noticeable enough element that from the outside looking in, it's sometimes the only thing that easy to see.



I suppose, that's an unfortunate truth. Hopefully this thread has thrown some light onto the fact that there's a lot more to the OSR than the occasional badwrongfun blog rant or messageboard edition war.


----------



## Bullgrit

> Perhaps because it's not "a yearning for the past in idealized form."



This taking the term "nostalia" as a slight is something that confuses me.

See, I play D&D _at all_ largely out of nostalgia. My preferred play style comes from a strong "yearning for the past in idealized form." I want to play the style of campaign that I used to play [and/or wanted to play] because I enjoyed it [and/or desired it] back then.

I love reading my old D&D books, not because they are excellent books on their own, but because they tickle my nostalgia gland. There are actually many things I dislike about some of the classic D&D adventure modules, but I love reading them for the nostalgia.

The main reason I don't like* the latest edition of D&D is that it doesn't have any nostalgic link for me.

So, for me, nostalgia is not a bad word. It's, in fact, a good word.

* "Don't like" does not mean "dislike."

Bullgrit


----------



## Desdichado

Back in the day, it was a common (although I'm sure just as unfair then as it would be now) complaint or observation that fantasy _as a genre_ was nothing but nostalgia, and idealization of the past.

It's hard to argue that that isn't a big portion of fantasy's attraction even today, although of course, you can't say that's the _only_ attraction.

And before that, the same thing was said of the Medieval Romances of the 19th century.

Which was said of the _chansons de geste_ and other works of the centuries prior to that.

The same complaint has been made about Homer, writing during the Greek Dark Ages and yearning for the Golden Mycenaean age.

It'll always be with us, I'm sure.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

Well, I think there's the OSR, and then there's the retro-clone movement, and then there's the New Wave of Pre-3e Material.  I think there's significant overlap between these three groups, but it's worth making a distinction.

I understand the retro-clone movement.  It was born in 2006, as the brainchild of Chris "Solomoriah" Gonnerman and Matt "Mythmere" Finch (who as far as I can tell both independently had similar ideas at the same time), who were quite quickly joined by Daniel Proctor and yours truly.  BFRPG was first, then OSRIC, then Labyrinth Lord and finally S&W.

The retro-clone movement arises from a fusion of the early-80's rules with the late-90's ideas around Open Gaming.  Ryan Dancey is as much its spiritual father as, say, Frank Mentzer is, because retro-clones are basically about empowering _someone else_ to publish something.  And the main retro-clones are free, like the 3e SRD was.

That "free" element was vital, because when the retro-clones came out, the market was wary and cynical.  The 2004-2005, d20, OGL-fuelled publishing blitz contained some worthy material and also a lot of overpriced rubbish.  The attraction of the retro-clones was that you could see the game you were being offered, download it, read it, think about it and _then_ decide whether to buy a print copy.  Buyers loved that, and so the retro-clone movement got a further boost.

I understand the New Wave of Pre-3e Material.  This is what happens when GMs who've been running the same system for 30 years finally get a chance to publish the best stuff from their notes:- publishers have a lot of material to choose from, and they can be a bit selective about what they market.  The New Wave will ease in time, but at the moment there's still plenty of pent-up material to sell.

I don't fully understand the OSR.  There's an extent to which it seems to be about nerd-rage, self-justification ("our game is better than your game and here's why") and evangelism (on the apparent theory that if you once try a Gygaxian game you'll be "cured" of enjoying later editions).  I would obviously like to distance myself from that view, even though I might be accused of having fuelled it by publishing OSRIC... but I _am_ evangelistic to this extent: whoever you are, I'd like to sit you down at my gaming table to play OSRIC with me.  

Negative aspects aside, there's also an extent to which the OSR is a positive and healthy thing, celebrating the rediscovery of all the things Gary Gygax, J. Eric Holmes, Tom Moldvay, Dave Arneson, Len Lakofka et. al. got right.  And I can understand that.  Extracting a simple and coherent set of rules from the disorganised, rambling stream of consciousness in High Gygaxian prose that is the 1e DMG is no easy task, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that thirty years after that book was originally published, people are still discovering fresh nuggets of wisdom in what it says.


----------



## Desdichado

That's an interesting distinction, with those three labels.  I mean, I'd have called them all facets of the OSR myself, but I don't disagree at all that they're three distinct populations, to an extent, who only superficially resemble each other.


----------



## Reynard

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> Extracting a simple and coherent set of rules from the disorganised, rambling stream of consciousness in High Gygaxian prose that is the 1e DMG is no easy task, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that thirty years after that book was originally published, people are still discovering fresh nuggets of wisdom in what it says.




In my next campaign, the scholarly language will be called High Gygaxian.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

Reynard said:


> In my next campaign, the scholarly language will be called High Gygaxian.




As epitomised by Zagyg Yragerne's seven-volume epic tome, "The antithesis of weal."


----------



## Ourph

Bullgrit said:


> This taking the term "nostalia" as a slight is something that confuses me.



Is it really that difficult to understand that years of people using it as a slight has given it that connotation? It's the equivalent of "video-gamey" for 3e and 4e. Video games in and of themselves aren't bad, but "video-gamey" is edition war shorthand for "your game sucks". Likewise "nostalgia" has become edition war shorthand for "you're a deluded old luddite who is too scared of change to recognize the obvious superiority of newer games".


----------



## Mallus

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> Negative aspects aside, there's also an extent to which the OSR is a positive and healthy thing, celebrating the rediscovery of all the things Gary Gygax, J. Eric Holmes, Tom Moldvay, Dave Arneson, Len Lakofka et. al. got right.



I'm not big into retro-gaming right now but I like OSR's focus on the gonzo DIY spirit of early role-playing gaming, where virtually everyone used cobbled-together, houseruled monstrosities that worked --only, barely-- for that specific group and most campaigns were set in crazy-quilt genre mash-ups where the likes of elves, Vikings, Amazons, dinosaurs, and robots rubbed shoulders. 

How we build the games we like interests me.


----------



## Ariosto

Bullgrit said:
			
		

> This taking the term "nostalia" as a slight is something that confuses me.



It is not "the term". Words are interpreted in contexts. That it is taken as a slight when _it is offered as a slight_ certainly does not confuse those who -- having been told that it is not appreciated -- offer it again.

Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.


----------



## Ariosto

PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I understand the retro-clone movement.  It was born in 2006 ...



That's pretty fair.

Gonnerman's _Project 74_ goes back to 2003 at least, but that was less a "retro-clone" than BFRPG -- really a "house rules supplement" for old D&D. Jerry Stratton's _Gods & Monsters_ (2005) was roughly "compatible with" 2E AD&D, but not really a recreation in any sense. Olivier Legrand's _Mazes & Minotaurs_ (2006?) riffed on a "what if" scenario from Paul Elliott.



			
				Hobo said:
			
		

> That's an interesting distinction, with those three labels.



Indeed. So, BFRPG and OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry, are "not OSR"? And _The Spire of Iron and Crystal_, _The People of the Pit_, _Death Frost Doom_, _White Dragon Run_, _Earth Unleashed_ -- are "not OSR"? All that playing and writing and sharing are "not OSR"?

In that case, P&P, what "_is_ OSR"?


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

Ariosto said:


> Indeed. So, BFRPG and OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry, are "not OSR"? And _The Spire of Iron and Crystal_, _The People of the Pit_, _Death Frost Doom_, _White Dragon Run_, _Earth Unleashed_ -- are "not OSR"? All that playing and writing and sharing are "not OSR"?
> 
> In that case, P&P, what "_is_ OSR"?




This is my personal view, not a definitive statement.  

Imagine a Venn diagram with three ellipses that overlap.  One's labelled "OSR", one's labelled "Retro-clone" and one's labelled "New wave of pre-3e material."  (Optionally, envisage that the "Retro-clone" ellipse actually overlaps a fourth ellipse called "Open Gaming movement".)

BFRPG, OSRIC, LL and S&W are somewhere in the "Retro-clone" ellipse, while (say) "People of the Pit" is in the bit where "Retro-clone" overlaps "New wave".  Aside from that they're neutral: not necessarily part of the OSR, but not necessarily out of it either.

Hackmaster and C&C aren't in the "Retro-clone" ellipse, not being precisely retro-clones, but they're arguably somewhere in the "New wave".

In the way that I'm using words, the OSR is that bit of the blogosphere and the forumsphere where people discuss and often proselytise material that they believe to be "old-school".

So for example there are people who evangelise for C&C, who would be in the "New wave" and in the "OSR" but not necessarily in the "Retro-clone" movement.  (Interestingly, Gary Gygax himself, in his later years, would have been one of these.)  Or for example, Joe Browning of Expeditious Retreat would be in the "Retro-clone" movement and squarely in the middle of the "New wave", but a quick look at his blog would tell you that Joe isn't really in the OSR.

Does that make sense?  All this is crystal clear to me but I fear I might be having trouble explaining it.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Ourph said:


> Is it really that difficult to understand that years of people using it as a slight has given it that connotation? It's the equivalent of "video-gamey" for 3e and 4e. Video games in and of themselves aren't bad, but "video-gamey" is edition war shorthand for "your game sucks". Likewise "nostalgia" has become edition war shorthand for "you're a deluded old luddite who is too scared of change to recognize the obvious superiority of newer games".




Well, I hate to say it, but nostalgia is a real word with a real meaning (and I am using the modern term, not the 18th century version which just tried to define it as a combination of homesickness and battle fatigue).  It is only an insult when used as such.  The term "video-gamey" is worded a little as a putdown, and it's a slang term.  (Video game is not an adjective).  Even that is not as bad as "threetard" or "fouron", which are portmanteus of Retard and Moron.  

I am not going to avoid using the term nostalgia to define some of the old school when it is very clear that parts of it are aimed at nostalgia.  (Just tell me for instance that those homage covers to early TSR covers that Goodman Games did, for instance, or the use of Century Gothic fonts on some products or even games like Hackmaster is anything other than nostalgia-aimed)  Those being over-sensitive to the use of the term...jeez, assuming most of the fans were alive back then--you are at least 40 or 50 years old!  If you can't hear the word nostalgia in a normal context without going crazy, how the hell will you be able to teach your kids and grandkids to ignore such petty insults.



> I don't fully understand the OSR. There's an extent to which it seems to be about nerd-rage, self-justification ("our game is better than your game and here's why") and evangelism (on the apparent theory that if you once try a Gygaxian game you'll be "cured" of enjoying later editions).




The key thing is evangelism and exclusionary attitudes are mutually exclusive.  If you actually would like the old school games to grow--and they would need new blood willing to try it to do it--you can't present a "bitter haters" club.  I see this more on the forums than the stuff you and the others are doing with the actual rules.  Sometimes people are mad at your stuff and the subsequent retro-clone movement because it "invalidates the real AD&D", for instance, and I think it's not productive to do that.


----------



## estar

Ariosto said:


> Indeed. So, BFRPG and OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizardry, are "not OSR"? And _The Spire of Iron and Crystal_, _The People of the Pit_, _Death Frost Doom_, _White Dragon Run_, _Earth Unleashed_ -- are "not OSR"? All that playing and writing and sharing are "not OSR"?




To throw my two cents worth in, the OSR is one of those terms that will be defined by how people use it. I mostly use it in reference to the D&D centric old school community and use Old School to mean all the older RPGs (early D&D, Traveller, Runequest, etc) that are current enjoying a resurgence. 

But like nearly all things in the OSR, my definition, even the very label the group applies to itself is disagreement. The point I hammer on is that the only thing that ties all of these disparate groups together is they agree that older editions are as much fun to play today as back in the day. Everything else depends on who you are talking about.

Plus not everybody can be pegged to a single community. I wrote the Majestic Wilderlands, Points of Light, and had a hand in writing the Wilderlands Boxed Set. But I write a blog with a somewhat large audience (hundreds) plus currently my own publisher, Bat in the Attic Games. And I hang out at Knights-n-Knaves, Dragonsfoot, Swords & Wizardry Forum, and the Original D&D discussion forum. So which group I am part of? All of them? Some? Or none?

All of this the result of the fine folks who did the retro-clones and using the open gaming liscense. While not everybody in the OSR, my definition, uses the OGL it was the seed that the OSR crystallized around and give it's free wheeling chaotic nature.

Which of course makes it all terribly confusing for those who are new and trying to make heads and tails on what going on. Some may criticize the OSR, my definition, because of this but right now there is no way to change it. 

It may be that a single company has a big enough hit to be considered THE OSR by the rest of the industry but even that won't stop the existing authors and producers from continuing what they do as long as they want to do it.

Mmm, that quite a bit for two cents, lets make it a nickel worth then


----------



## JohnRTroy

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> So for example there are people who evangelise for C&C, who would be in the "New wave" and in the "OSR" but not necessarily in the "Retro-clone" movement.  (Interestingly, Gary Gygax himself, in his later years, would have been one of these.)




Interestingly enough, I think if somebody like you had come out with OSRIC first (and probably as a publisher and not as a free rule set), Gygax might have supported that.  When Gary wrote his manuscripts for Yggsburg, for instance, he used AD&D short-hand--somebody else converted it to C&C rules.  At one point he was mad when I added something using 3e shorthand and got pissed when I showed him that I was using the draft C&C SRD.   (That was back in 2004 and I felt guilty that I might had accidentally cancelled the project, although it got back under control).

I think the fact he stayed with C&C was because (a) he was very loyal to his partners, and understood that the Trolls were trying to keep the spirit alive as well as they could based on their own legal analysis and (b) even if OSRIC was available, I think for EGG in particular he didn't want to risk even the hint of risk, as he suffered from a suit over Dangerous Journeys and would never open himself to extra risk.  (He was probably a bit more "new wave" as he favored his new game Lejendary Adventures above AD&D however).


----------



## estar

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Anyone else think that there's a "Lost School" covering the late 1E/most of 2E/later BECMI material, with Elmore/Caldwell/Easley art (and others like Stephen Fabian, who's criminally underappreciated), more setting- and story-focused gaming, and a less nasty, brutish, swords & sorcery feel, that sort of gets lost amid the OSR, the 3E/Pathfinder, and the 4E groups? Or is it just me?




Wait until the late 2010's or early 2020's. I think it will be in full force then. Not to say they won't be stuff done before then. The reason is nostaglia and older adult having kids or more time to play the stuff they like when younger. Nostaglia won't the sole reason for a 2e resurgence but give that initial push to allow it continue on it's own. I also think the various settings will play a bigger part in a 2e resurgence since that was a big part of the product line. 

This is all speculation of course.


----------



## JohnRTroy

estar said:


> Wait until the late 2010's or early 2020's. I think it will be in full force then. Not to say they won't be stuff done before then. The reason is nostaglia and older adult having kids or more time to play the stuff they like when younger. Nostaglia won't the sole reason for a 2e resurgence but give that initial push to allow it continue on it's own. I also think the various settings will play a bigger part in a 2e resurgence since that was a big part of the product line.
> 
> This is all speculation of course.




Well, technically I think nostalgia starts 20 rather than 30 years in the past.  Usually around 30 is when you start to want to hear the pop music hits from your past.  But it's sort of nebulous.  We'll probably be starting with the 90s oldies pretty soon.  (Although the 80s oldies BS themselves by never using the term "oldies", instead saying "back to the 80s" or some other euphamism.) 

Although in music, it is never too early for 90s nostalgia.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYj2sTWUx5g]YouTube - NEW VIDEO !! Dr Alban vs Haddaway - I love the 90´s[/ame]



[And yeah, it's not Grunge or Lillith Fair, but I'm a dance music fan...]

In all seriousness though, I think 2e might not be as strong as 1e because back during the D&D "fad" days, there were a lot more new gamers, and also if you started gaming in 1980, there was less options available.  Some gamers in the 90s might have ignored D&D and gone with Vampire or the other alternatives.  That's a possibility, but I won't rule out a 2e revival.

We are starting to see it.  Dragonsfoot has been host to several people who were part of the 2e era.


----------



## Ariosto

JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> If you can't hear the word nostalgia in a normal context without going crazy, how the hell will you be able to teach your kids and grandkids to ignore such petty insults.



If you can't hear
(A) that it is not a "normal context" with which people disagree, and
(B) that it is not "going crazy" to point out that "*just* nostalgia" is a misrepresentation
-- then a straw man may be interfering with your listening.


----------



## JohnRTroy

Ariosto said:


> If you can't hear
> (A) that it is not a "normal context" with which people disagree, and
> (B) that it is not "going crazy" to point out that "*just* nostalgia" is a misrepresentation
> -- then a straw man may be interfering with your listening.




Keep in mind I was replying to Ourph, where he implied the very word itself was tainted.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

JohnRTroy said:


> Interestingly enough, I think if somebody like you had come out with OSRIC first (and probably as a publisher and not as a free rule set), Gygax might have supported that.  When Gary wrote his manuscripts for Yggsburg, for instance, he used AD&D short-hand--somebody else converted it to C&C rules.  At one point he was mad when I added something using 3e shorthand and got pissed when I showed him that I was using the draft C&C SRD.   (That was back in 2004 and I felt guilty that I might had accidentally cancelled the project, although it got back under control).
> 
> I think the fact he stayed with C&C was because (a) he was very loyal to his partners, and understood that the Trolls were trying to keep the spirit alive as well as they could based on their own legal analysis and (b) even if OSRIC was available, I think for EGG in particular he didn't want to risk even the hint of risk, as he suffered from a suit over Dangerous Journeys and would never open himself to extra risk.  (He was probably a bit more "new wave" as he favored his new game Lejendary Adventures above AD&D however).




From my own correspondence with Gary, I have several reasons to think this post is right on the money.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

JohnRTroy said:


> Keep in mind I was replying to Ourph, where he implied the very word itself was tainted.




It's not tainted, but I think it's pretty clear that people find "nostalgia" slighting and, rightly or wrongly, they're taking offence.  Perhaps it would be gentlemanly of you to find an alternative phrasing?


----------



## Ariosto

I personally have no use for equating some "blogosphere" with a "renaissance" in any field but bloviation.

T. Foster's use in regards to illustration, which I quoted earlier, is much more in line with what it means to me -- and that reference to "this old school renaissance" precedes by two years JohnRTroy's putative sudden proliferation of punditry.

Is some trade dress definitely nostalgic, possibly even "just nostalgic"? Maybe so! I am sure it is no coincidence that _The Dangerous Book for Boys_ (and its companion _The Daring Book for Girls_) looks like an artifact from a century or more ago -- before even its intended readers' grandparents were born. The aesthetic suggests an _ethos_ perhaps at odds with some lately considered "modern". (It avers that "Dungeons & Dragons" is still the best role-playing game, as I recall.)


----------



## Ourph

JohnRTroy said:


> I am not going to avoid using the term nostalgia to define some of the old school when it is very clear that parts of it are aimed at nostalgia.



John, I don't care if you use the word nostalgia in every sentence you ever post on ENWorld from now until the end of time. I'm not the word police and I'm not particularly offended by the word nostalgia even when people do use it pejoratively. Bullgrit expressed confusion about people's reaction to the word. I tried to alleviate some of that confusion. There's no need to turn that into a snippy debate where we quote dictionary definitions at each other.



JohnRTroy said:


> Keep in mind I was replying to Ourph, where he implied the very word itself was tainted.



I didn't imply anything, I think I stated my point pretty clearly. For some people (note: not me), the word is tainted with negative connotations when used in the context of OS games. Like it, don't like it, believe it, don't believe it, care, don't care. Whatever. I'm not arguing a "side", just providing information.


----------



## Desdichado

Ariosto said:


> It is not "the term". Words are interpreted in contexts. That it is taken as a slight when _it is offered as a slight_ certainly does not confuse those who -- having been told that it is not appreciated -- offer it again.
> 
> Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.



Speaking of missing the context... the whole point of this discussion is that there's a wave of folks who frequently get offended when it's _not_ offered as a slight.  Your point here goes without saying.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hobo said:


> Speaking of missing the context... the whole point of this discussion is that there's a wave of folks who frequently get offended when it's _not_ offered as a slight.  Your point here goes without saying.




If that's the whole point of this discussion, then the thread title is rather misleading.  That there's a wave of folks who frequently get offended when something is _not_ offered as a slight has nothing to do with the OSR.  It is pretty universal across the board.

If the OSR is about getting offended, then so is D&D.


RC


----------



## Desdichado

Raven Crowking said:


> If that's the whole point of this discussion, then the thread title is rather misleading.  That there's a wave of folks who frequently get offended when something is _not_ offered as a slight has nothing to do with the OSR.  It is pretty universal across the board.
> 
> If the OSR is about getting offended, then so is D&D.



No, not the entire thread.  The portion to which Ariosto was responding.

And pointing out that certain behavior patterns happen in other contexts is certainly a true observation, but not particularly relevent to the question of what the OSR is about.

I find it simultanously frustrating and amusing that I'm having to defend the details of what I say at every point about the OSR across multiple threads, while P&P's comments, "I don't fully understand the OSR. There's an extent to which it seems to be about nerd-rage, self-justification ("our game is better than your game and here's why") and evangelism (on the apparent theory that if you once try a Gygaxian game you'll be "cured" of enjoying later editions).", which is _much_ more confrontational, yet not incompatible with what I've been trying to say at all, gets hardly the batting of an eyelash.

I guess I lack sufficient insider cred to make an observation that might possibly be construed as negative, even when said observation is pretty much common knowledge and accepted by plenty of folks on the inside as well.

:shrug:


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hobo said:


> And pointing out that certain behavior patterns happen in other contexts is certainly a true observation, but not particularly relevent to the question of what the OSR is about.





Sure it is.

"Living" is part of the definition of fish, but it does little to help define fish from, say, lions.  If X is a quality of a broad group, of which Y is a subset, trying to define that subset by quality X is not very helpful.

Likewise, "African" is a part of the definition of some fish, and some lions, but not a quality of all fish or all lions, so trying to use "African" as a means to describe fish (or to differentiate fish from lions) is not going to be very helpful.

For these reasons, "Some people complain" and "Some people are easily offended" is _*completely irrelevant *_as to "what the OSR is about".

And pointing that out _*is relevant *_to the conversation, regardless of how you might or might not feel about it.



RC


----------



## Desdichado

No, it's really not.  If, as I said earlier, it's a sufficiently common, or loud, or whatever vibe to OSR themed discussions that it's difficult for an outsider looking in to not see that to the point of almost drowning out whatever else is going on, you can hardly claim that its completely irrelevent.

While I may only be describing a subset of the OSR when I mention that, I'm upfront in saying that I realize it's only a subset of the OSR, and not common to the entire OSR.  Meanwhile, by claiming that it's completely irrelevent to the OSR, you're _also_ only describing a subset of the OSR, a more positive subset that you'd like to see get the identification, but you're _not_ being up front in admitting that it's a subset and not the entirety of the movement.  In fact, you're trying to present your subset exactly as if it were the entirety of the movement.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

Hobo said:


> I find it simultanously frustrating and amusing that I'm having to defend the details of what I say at every point about the OSR across multiple threads, while P&P's comments, "I don't fully understand the OSR. There's an extent to which it seems to be about nerd-rage, self-justification ("our game is better than your game and here's why") and evangelism (on the apparent theory that if you once try a Gygaxian game you'll be "cured" of enjoying later editions).", which is _much_ more confrontational, yet not incompatible with what I've been trying to say at all, gets hardly the batting of an eyelash.




I think it's less about insider-cred, Hobo, and more about phrasing.  I was using the first person indicative rather than the emphatic declarative.

In other words:

"The OSR is about nostalgia" ---> people taking offence, generating argument; but 
"I think there's an extent to which the OSR is about nostalgia" ---> people politely disagreeing, generating reasoned debate.

Admittedly, it's very easy for me to say that.  I might have some "insider-cred", because there are perhaps some people who might perceive me as a bit of an authority on these things, but I do think how we use words is an important aspect of this.

Incidentally, I _do_ think there's an extent to which the OSR is about -- well, let's not say "nostalgia".  Let's say "celebrating the past".  Certainly, most New Wave of Pre-3e Material publishers like to use trade dress that hearkens back to the 1980s.  And that makes sense: they're using trade dress that matches the content of their product and appeals to their intended audience.

But I don't think the OSR is _purely_ about celebrating the past.  The better publishers are doing genuinely new things with it.


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

Incidentally, and perhaps of interest to anyone who's still reading this thread: a number of dedicated people have been hard at work converting OSRIC to a wiki.

If you'd like to check it out, or help, it's at: OSRIC


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hobo said:


> No, it's really not.  If, as I said earlier, it's a sufficiently common, or loud, or whatever vibe to OSR themed discussions that it's difficult for an outsider looking in to not see that to the point of almost drowning out whatever else is going on, you can hardly claim that its completely irrelevent.




If you find that argument compelling, so be it.

However, I think that what you are seeing is as much about observer bias as it is about what is there.  IOW, when you are painting with that brush, you colour not only those you wish to paint, but yourself as well.  As I said earlier.


RC


----------



## Desdichado

Raven Crowking said:


> If you find that argument compelling, so be it.
> 
> However, I think that what you are seeing is as much about observer bias as it is about what is there.  IOW, when you are painting with that brush, you colour not only those you wish to paint, but yourself as well.  As I said earlier.



Whereas, I find it mind-boggling that you continue to deny that it's an important component of the OSR, or imply that it says something about me instead of about the OSR.  Until I started really digging into it and reading some of the better blogs in the OSR blogosphere, that's the _only_ thing the OSR was to me, because it was the only thing I could see.

That doesn't have anything to do with me, and everything to do with the OSRians who tended to hang around and post in the same D&D related forums I did.


----------



## Desdichado

PapersAndPaychecks said:


> I think it's less about insider-cred, Hobo, and more about phrasing.  I was using the first person indicative rather than the emphatic declarative.
> 
> In other words:
> 
> "The OSR is about nostalgia" ---> people taking offence, generating argument; but
> "I think there's an extent to which the OSR is about nostalgia" ---> people politely disagreeing, generating reasoned debate.
> 
> Admittedly, it's very easy for me to say that.  I might have some "insider-cred", because there are perhaps some people who might perceive me as a bit of an authority on these things, but I do think how we use words is an important aspect of this.



Are you trying to say that, "The OSR is about nostalgia," in any way whatsoever actually resembles what I said in this thread?  Because I assure you, I went out of my way to not say that.

Even if I may have thought it, at least a little bit.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hobo said:


> Whereas, I find it mind-boggling that you continue to deny that it's an important component of the OSR, or imply that it says something about me instead of about the OSR.





I'll grant you that you may well be reading things I am not, and so might be coming from a different perspective.  You are welcome -- more than welcome -- to cite your evidence!

But I don't deny that being a living creature is an important part of the definition of fish, or that being African might be an important part of the definition of some specific species of fish.  Likewise, I don't deny that some OSR folks are evangelical, or that some are easily offended.

"Living" is part of the definition of fish, but it does little to help define fish from, say, lions. If X is a quality of a broad group, of which Y is a subset, trying to define that subset by quality X is not very helpful.

Likewise, being evangelical occurs AFAICT in roughly equal parts across all groups of gamers -- it just isn't as easy to see, perhaps, in the majority group -- and thus does little to help define OSR folks from, say, 4e folks.  If X is a quality of a broad group, of which Y is a subset, trying to define that subset by quality X is not very helpful.

Similarly, being easily offended occurs AFAICT in roughly equal parts across all groups of gamers, and thus does little to help define OSR folks from, say, Pathfinder folks.  Again, if X is a quality of a broad group, of which Y is a subset, trying to define that subset by quality X is not very helpful.

"African" is a part of the definition of some fish, and some lions, but not a quality of all fish or all lions, so trying to use "African" as a means to describe fish (or to differentiate fish from lions) is not going to be very helpful.

"Evangelical" is a part of the definition of some OSR folks, and some current edition folks, but not a quality of all OSR or all current edition folks, so trying to use "evangelical" as a means to describe OSR folks (or to differentiate OSR supporters from supporters of the current edition) is not going to be very helpful.

"Easily offended" is a part of the definition of some OSR folks, and some current edition folks, but not a quality of all OSR or all current edition folks, so trying to use "easily offended" as a means to describe OSR folks (or to differentiate OSR supporters from supporters of the current edition) is not going to be very helpful.

The minute you start painting "Them" with a broad brush, you are also saying something about yourself.  I don't see any way around that.  I don't see how it really matters who "They" are.  And, if the broad brush you are using isn't something flattering, what it says about you isn't, either.


RC


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

Hobo said:


> Are you trying to say that, "The OSR is about nostalgia," in any way whatsoever actually resembles what I said in this thread?  Because I assure you, I went out of my way to not say that.
> 
> Even if I may have thought it, at least a little bit.




I'm trying to say that I could hear you thinking it.


----------



## Desdichado

Raven Crowking said:


> The minute you start painting "Them" with a broad brush, you are also saying something about yourself.  I don't see any way around that.  I don't see how it really matters who "They" are.  And, if the broad brush you are using isn't something flattering, what it says about you isn't, either.



What I continue to repeat, and you continue to ignore, is that I've continually gone out of my way to restrict my "them" to a _*subset*_ of the OSR, and since I've also done absolutely nothing to identify them, I remain baffled by your insistence that I'm painting with a broad brush and that there's some snide implication about me personally because of it.  I am, in fact, deliberately, carefully, pointedly, purposefully and decidely painting with a very _narrow_ brush.  Also, if you're reduced to making personal attacks against me because of my position, couched as they are in pseudo-polite passive aggressiveness, I'd assert that you're at a point where you want to re-examine your position.

But, I'm starting to get the feeling that I'm repeating myself ad nauseum here, and that you're going to continue to exhibit what I am forced to see as wilfull obtuseness by this point, so ... eh.  I'm done.

Bullgrit, don't take my word for it, or Raven's.  Go check out the OSR blogosphere.  Go hang around OSR-themed forums.  Decide for yourself what kind of "vibe" you perceive.  Us arguing about our different perceptions isn't going to go any farther than it already has.


			
				PapersAndPaychecks said:
			
		

> I'm trying to say that I could hear you thinking it.



Considering how deliberate I've been in the wording of my posts in this thread, that would be quite a feat.

Is psionics accepted by the OSR, or is that too new-fangled a concept, anyway?


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks

Hobo said:


> Considering how deliberate I've been in the wording of my posts in this thread, that would be quite a feat.




Well, I think I understood what you were saying, and I think I understood what you weren't saying as well.  And I don't necessarily disagree with you.



Hobo said:


> Is psionics accepted by the OSR, or is that too new-fangled a concept, anyway?




Mind flayers are old-school and cool!

Player character psionics are probably a bit less widely-accepted.


----------



## Raven Crowking

Hobo said:


> What I continue to repeat, and you continue to ignore, is that I've continually gone out of my way to restrict my "them" to a _*subset*_ of the OSR




Then we agree.  It is a _*subset*_ of the OSR in no way different than the similar _*subset*_ of current edition fans, and therefore in no way unique to, or definitive of, the OSR.



> and since I've also done absolutely nothing to identify them, I remain baffled by your insistence that I'm painting with a broad brush




These two things are linked.

A subset that is conflated with the set, yet isn't identified as a particular subset, can seem an awful lot like a broad brush painting the set.  But since we agree that we are only a _*subset*_ of the OSR in no way different than the similar _*subset*_ of current edition fans, and therefore in no way unique to, or definitive of, the OSR, I think we are on the same page now.



> I'd assert that you're at a point where you want to re-examine your position.




Could be.  I'm no more immunte to observer bias than anyone else.  



RC


----------



## Bullgrit

Hobo said:
			
		

> Is psionics accepted by the OSR, or is that too new-fangled a concept, anyway?



Psionics are as "old school" as weapon vs. AC, rate of fire, speed factors, save or die poison, and 18/00 Strength. They're in the AD&D1 PHB, DMG, and all the monster books.

Bullgrit


----------



## M.L. Martin

Bullgrit said:


> Psionics are as "old school" as weapon vs. AC, rate of fire, speed factors, save or die poison, and 18/00 Strength. They're in the AD&D1 PHB, DMG, and all the monster books.
> 
> Bullgrit




   Actually, they may be older school than even some of those--I believe psionics first show up in _Eldritch Wizardry_.


----------



## Betote

For me, the old school movement means looking back to games which were abandoned for being "old", because the company that made them ceased to exist, because a new edition was created, etcetera.

For some years now, people have come to accept that, sometimes, they got it right the first time. Because, let's face it, if we hadn't had fun in our first years of gaming, we wouldn't be still doing it, right? So, there must be something in those experiences worth saving.

And we look back, with nostalgia, yes, but also with a scientific interest in discovering what made those games so good and fun for us, and we try to recreate those qualities in our current tables. For some, it's the rules; for some others, it's the sandbox exploration; for some others, it might be the DM-vs-Players mindset, the settings, the art of the Gygaxian prose. Becasue the truth is, each of us had fun for different reasons, and therefore what we get from our old school investigation is something different.

And yes, there are some really obnoxious people in the OSR. Name a hobby or group of individuals which hasn't.


----------

