It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Posted By: Zak SDo not confuse "the OSR" with "attempts to claim people used to roll back in the day the way we do".That's like saying the Ramones were an attempting to sound like Buddy Holly.And anything is more efficient than buying a new game every week, reading it and rolling whole new characters just because you want to move the focus to a different thing for a few hours.
Posted By: Paul Bconanical definition of OSR
Posted By: Eero TuovinenI could just about imagine a Dogs session where the characters agreed all the time about everything. If this was the result of talks and soul-searching, then everything's good and the game can proceed to the next town over, where the GM will presumably seek to drive some wedges. If the players are of like mind because of a siege mentality or because they're seeking to "win", then it's not going to work - the game's not mechanically set up for mindless combat for the same of combat, it's not going to be particularly fun.
Posted By: Paul BSo why step in with "don't mistake this for that" talk, Zak? Is OSR one of those "I know it when I see it" things? Or do you have a very firm idea of what it "isn't"?Because I gotta tell you, there are puh-lenty of OSR folks out there who do seem to think "this is how we rolled in the old days" is precisely, exactly what OSR-style play is: rules vs rulings and all that. Shit, Google "OSR" and the first thing you get is a link to a Lulu document that is a "how to roll like they used to in the old days" guidebook.Which is it? Is it "rolling like they used to?" Or is it "experimenting with the gaming possibilities of TSR-era rulesets and gaming tools with an eye toward possibilities that were left un- or under- explored at the time"?Each one of those is going to result in a radically different discussion. Because they're pretty much exactly opposite.
Posted By: Zak SThe OSR is an attempt to experiment with the gaming possibilities of TSR-era rulesets and gaming tools with an eye toward possibilities that were left un- or under- explored at the time.
Posted By: Paul BSometimes the players became so comfortable with the setting assumptions that it wasn't hard to figure out correct/reasonable outcomes for the setting, freeing up bandwidth for more character-driven drama.
Posted By: TomasHVMOld School Roleplayseems strange to me. I do not understand it. It seems to me the people identifying with that movement are the mormons of rpg-culture, kind of. So I say; let them be.I've played classical games since I discovered them, back in -86, and will do for the foreseeable future. I've played modern games too, and will do. And every time I play I try to be inventive. I try to use my imagination. I try to develop the interaction, and the fiction, and by doing so I invariably do some informal development of the game too.Not to develop a role-playing game further, any role-playing game, is the antithesis torole-playing, in my view.
Posted By: Zak SIf you think Old School Renaissance = Deciding Not To Develop The Game You're Playing you got it totally 100% backwards.
Posted By: TomasHVMPosted By: Zak SIf you think Old School Renaissance = Deciding Not To Develop The Game You're Playing you got it totally 100% backwards.
Posted By: TomasHVMSo this is in fact not "old school" at all, or? There is no dogma to it, no sentences for people to abide by? We are simply talking of people exploring the classical set-up (leader + players). Or?I've explored the classical set-up myself for as long as I have played rpgs. I never actuallyleftthe classical set-up, even if I have done (and still are) a lot of design of modern games too (games with no GM). Still; when working the classical set-up I would never consider what I am doing "old school" or "renaissance".In my experience most people play classical role-playing games. They never left it, and know of little else. I expect that to be true for the US too. But if that is true over there too; how come players are said to bereturningto something they never left?Are we actually talking about developing an old schooltheorem, saying something along these lines;- We want to keep on playing these old games.- We prefer theirinherent philosophy of playto other ideas on rpgs.- We proclaim aschool of thoughtbased on the old games.If these lines are somewhat close to reality, it leads me to the obvious question:- What is that school?and:- Why should we consider it an "antithesis" to other role-playing games?- Is it a part of that school to refute developments done in newer games, both classical and modern?
Posted By: Eero Tuovinen(Zak: because I know that the above probably annoys you, I should clarify that I do not intend to imply that Ron Edwards started the OSR movement. That would be, insofar as I know, ridiculous. I'm just describing the extent of my own awareness of the movement seven years back.)
Posted By: Zak SThey have some things in common: death is ok, emergent story is ok, sandbox/location based play is ok, fast character generation is ok, characters that look (on paper) like other characters are ok, Erol Otus is ok, randomness is ok, railroads suck, etc....When someone claims any of these things is Not Ok the OSR self-identifies in order to say "Hey, there's a whole community here who does this and it's fun for them and they are not insane masochists, know that" otherwise it is content to be a big tent.
Posted By: J. WaltonThe OSR is one of the big movements and influences in Anglo-American roleplaying right now
Posted By: 2097This thread diverged, but earlier you were talking about gamism and how the OSR is kinda-sorta-a-little-bit like it.But where did the concept of »gamism« in RPG come from if not from old D&D?That’s how I’ve always read it.That’s not to say, of course, that D&D can’t be other things too.
Posted By: TomasHVMI could never identify with a school of thought that makes popular ideas into gospel.
Posted By: Zak S"Gamism" is not a term I recognize as making a lot of sense.
Posted By: Zak SPosted By: TomasHVMI could never identify with a school of thought that makes popular ideas into gospel.
Posted By: Bret GillanPosted By: Zak S"Gamism" is not a term I recognize as making a lot of sense.
Posted By: J. Walton@Tomas: It's totally cool if you're not interested in the Old School Renaissance or reinvestigating and rethinking early RPG play styles. No need to disparage people who are interested in those things.
Posted By: Vernon R That makes me question why they've kept some of the rules they've decided to hold on to though, they seem to be more nostalgia or familiarity than providing anything useful.
Posted By: TomasHVMPosted By: J. Walton if you feel hurt; say so. If you think others feel hurt; let them say it themselves.
I do find some of the notions in OSR not very well founded, and have given my view on that, without going into depth on why I think so.
Posted By: Paul T.I have a feeling that the OSR was/is, at least in part, also a reaction to the new developments in D&D itself.It seems to me that a lot of D&D players felt that the 3rd edition, and especially the 4th edition, was turning D&D into something they could no longer recognize, play, or enjoy: the game was being designed in a way that was at odds with their preferred playstyle.If I am correct, this then pushed many of those people who might have been "on the fence" towards publicly reclaiming earlier editions of D&D and the associated playstyle. Hence the detailed investigations into "how it was done" so many years ago, and mining those experiences for techniques and playstyle which may have been "lost" to the mainstream.Is there some truth to my guess?
Posted By: viktor_haagZak's own efforts include people with little or no "old guard" experience if I read his reports correctly
Posted By: TomasHVM I find it peculiar to set such limits on ones interactivity.
Posted By: Zak S"Challenge-oriented play" is a major part of the OSR, but the idea of single-agenda focused play is, as I said on page one, not so big in the OSR.
Posted By: TeataineYes and yes to both of the above. It's a shared understanding that play will be, for a period of time,predominantlychallenge-oriented (or whatever).