A bag of polyhedral dice, spilled open
Exploring OSR, Threads of Conversation

Exploring OSR

The style of game play I enjoy for my tabletop roleplaying experiences is what is known as “OSR.” There are several different ways to define that acronym, however, which has contributed to some confusion about what it is. The more common interpretations are “Old School Revival,” “Old School Renaissance,” and “Old School Rules.” Many folks prefer the first two interpretations, which enjoy a significant overlap. Others prefer the third, which provides clarity about the boundaries of what OSR is, while excluding games which might otherwise fit the play style.

As my opening sentence has already indicated, I’m more a “revival/renaissance” type person. I see OSR as a “big tent” term which refers to the play style and not any sort of particular rule-set. This is a more inclusive vision of OSR but it does blur the borders between what it is, and is not. While I am not in favor of huge walls to separate the Tabletop Role Playing Game hobby space from itself, I do like having reference points which can help me know what type of conversation I’m having with other hobbyists. To that end, I’m going to attempt to describe the three threads which I embrace as part of the OSR conversation.

Before continuing, allow me to provide some general definitions for two terms. “Modern” style role playing games tend to focus on the thrill of epic power levels, seek balance between characters and encounter design, and tend to have more planned story-lines “OSR” style games tend to focus on the thrill of peril, eschew balance in favor of “off the sheet” creative solutions, and have story emerge from game play rather than a GM’s plans. Neither is “better.” There are play styles we may like, and play styles we may not like. I prefer OSR style play. But that’s all it is, preference.

With that out of the way, let’s look at some threads.

Retro-clones

In the wake of the original release of the Open Gaming License (OGL) back in the early aughts several game developers explored the possibility of re-creating out of print versions of the game through the use of the System Reference Document (SRD) provided under the OGL’s terms. Games like Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardy, Basic Fantasy RPG, OSRIC, Old School Essentials, Dungeon Crawl Classics, and Worlds Without Number all fit on this thread.

“Retro-clone” isn’t a precise term for these games, however, as many offer their own additions to the rules they seek to emulate. For example, Basic Fantasy RPG uses ascending Armor Class by default and Dungeon crawl classics has a much different take on spell casting. At the same time, anyone who played a role playing game in the early years of the hobby would feel right at home with the mechanics of these OSR games, so “retro-clone” is a term which fits.

Retro-clones also began the OSR conversation, which may be why some insist these are the only “real” OSR games.

New School Rules

NSR, or NuSR, is an interesting mesh between New Weird Fiction and the style of old school play–there is heightened danger, character sheets are simple, die rolls are only made when there’s a chance for meaningful failure, and action tends to be fast and furious. Despite this familiar style, however, their resolution mechanics do not recreate earlier iterations of RPGs. They instead opt to create new, often simpler, mechanics for play while amping up the oddness of the setting.

I consider games like Into The Odd, Knave, Index Card RPG, EZd6, and even Forbidden Lands as part of the New School Rules thread.

Progression Games

Progression games examine the development of Dungeons & Dragons, and ask, “What if the designers had gone this way, instead?” This question leads Progression Game designers to explore the development of what could be considered “alternate timeline” versions of the official game.

In Progression Games many aspects of the mechanics may remain familiar, and game play style tends to straddle the divide between Old School and Modern play styles. Progression games retain a good deal of mechanical overlap with the game from which they branch off. At the same time, rules for saving throws, initiative, combat, spell-casting, and character abilities take on their own look in these “What if…?” explorations.

These types of changes do share significant overlap with both Retro-Clones and New School Rules games, but the design goal is different. Progression Games are not attempting to recreate an earlier iteration of the rules, or even emulate an earlier play style. They are focused on, as their title indicates, progression–just along routes which are different from those the official game took. Games like Castles & Crusades and Low Fantasy Gaming highlight this thread.

The Blend

In my perspective of OSR these three threads are all in conversation with one another. Retro-Clones remind folks of where we came from, NSR games show us how play style isn’t tied to specific mechanics, and Progression Games chart alternative paths through history and beyond as they pursue their own versions of fun. Nor are these threads independent from one another, isolated in their own closed conversations. Rather, each of the threads bleeds into the others, blurring lines and creating fascinating gradients. And in these gradient spaces where the threads overlap new ideas are formed–which helps keep the hobby both fresh and growing so the conversation can continue.


Discover more from DM Tales

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

14 responses to “Exploring OSR”

  1. I like this framing. Where would you place games like powered by the apocalypse forged in the dark and other more narratively driven games that use atypical mechanics.

    Like

    • Heh, one of my groups is literally having this discussion on Discord right now. My initial inclination was to say that PbtA is NOT in an OSR thread, but Calvin (who writes for the page) pointed out the goals of Dungeon World and it made me thinks it probably could be considered on the NSR thread.

      But other PbtA games, I would say, are their own conversation-like Avatar and Brindlewood Bay. And that’s a cool thing.

      Like

      • Agree. I put it more in the NSR category–but I think some of the inspiration is rooted in “Old school” sensibilities–namely that narrativity (play to find out) is important and gets lost in some modern gaming styles.

        Like

  2. DCC is not an OSR rule set. It emulates the old playing style, but it is firmly rooted in 3.5 rules (e.g. saving roles) and adds totally unique new rules e.g. for spellcasting.

    Like

    • Given the number of tweaks and mechanical changes in the game you could make a great argument that DCC is more of a progression game than a retro clone. But saying it’s not OSR? Nah.

      Like

    • I know a lot of people that would disagree with you on the DCC thing, but I tend to agree in the strict sense. DCC is a retro-clone but of 3.5 which by my definition makes it not “old school” in a strict sense–in fact the OSR as I understand was in part a reaction to 3.5. BUT I do think there are old school sensibilities built into it–namely the liberal use of random tables, swingy outcomes and the style of the adventures (at least the ones I have played). There were a lot of “old school” (non-TSR) supplements that leaned hard into this and I suspect that is where the designers got it from. One definition of OSR might strictly include 1e retro clones (only) but I am not sure how useful that is. It is possible for games to be hybrids.

      Like

      • Yah, though I state I’m not using that definition. OSR started with strict retro clones (though B/C seems to be the more popular target over AD&D). It just didn’t stay there.

        Like

  3. I referred to the definition of DCC being a retro-clone. It is ”old school“, but it is not a retro-clone. The third category of yours was unknown to me. I wouldn’t know where to put Basic Fantasy and C&C in this pattern. Actually the main discussion is usually between ”OSR“ and ”NSR“. I see the attraction NSR does provide to newcomers of the ”OSR“ fold. But I am used to the old rules, so the pain of omitted rules in NSR games outweighs the benefits of a heavily streamlined playing experience.

    Like

    • Your comment was, “DCC is not an OSR rule set.”

      From this comment I surmise you work from the idea that OSR only includes “retro-clones.” I don’t find that to be where the OSR conversation has gone.

      The third category came because OSR circles I’m part of were including games like C&C even though they aren’t retro-clones, aren’t NSR, and have rolled back the starting point to progress the game forward along different paths. Given the assertion which surrounds C&C, “this is what 3rd edition could have been.” It seemed like an apt-descriptor.

      You can make a successful argument that DCC works better as a Progression Game, and the line between the changes a lot of retro-clones do implement in their games and a progression game is blurred. This is also addressed in the post. But saying it’s not under the umbrella of OSR because its not constrained to emulate an older rule-set without full fidelity just doesn’t work.

      If you have more fun playing retro-clones then you have more fun playing retro-clones. But thread preference shouldn’t translate to, “And therefor this isn’t…”

      Like

      • Let’s just state: That third category was unknown to me. And DCC wasn’t part of either of the two categories known to me: retro-clones (= origin of OSR, for which edition of the game would DCC try to emulate?) and NSR games (= new approaches to old school play with heavily reduced complexity –> it isn’t less complex).

        So from my point of knowledge (assuming that there were just two categories) both C&C and DCC wouldn’t fit the bill of being retro-clones or being NSR games. They wouldn’t fit into the OSR scheme. For both games heavilly rely on OGL 3.5 rule mechanisms.

        If you include that new third category of “what could have been” games, then both DCC and C&C would perfectly fit into this category. You could also include “Adventures Dark & Deep” which is based on the assumption “How would Gary Gygax’ 2nd edition AD&D look like?”.

        I think we can agree on that. 🙂

        Like

  4. Hello Wezlo, thank you for this great post. I ran into this OSR/NSR in my first ever campaign with D&D 5e. The group was formed as a sort of amalgam of pairs of friends and it made for an interesting session 0. We charged ahead despite the obvious challenges we would face at the Table since the stylistic differences felt too far apart and some of the personalities were… strong? Ultimately that group fell apart and the campaign was never finished, a subset of the group still exists and play to this day. I guess my questions for you are: do you think players who differ in terms of what they are looking for in terms of playstyle can play at the same table and what sort of ground rules would facilitate that? I am fortunate to have two consistent, fun and fair groups today – but as someone who likes to teach 5e (mostly through oneshots), I am wondering how can a balance be struck when I inevitably run headlong into a similar situation.

    Like

    • Hmmm. I’m far from an expect but I’ll share some thoughts.

      I think it’s a matter of expectations even more than play style. Or, rather, people’s expectations inform their play style so that’s more where I look. Honestly I think there CAN be groups which have people who have very different expectations as long as they respect their expectations won’t be met all the time.

      This takes people who have a bit of emotional intelligence to bend so someone else can have their expectations met at times, knowing it’ll come back around to them later on.

      And when that level of emotional intelligence isn’t present, a group can become toxic. When you have multiple vectors for this lack and the pull comes from multiple angles…it can get REALLY toxic.

      And there are lines we may say as GM’s are just not going to be crossed. People who expect to cross those lines are not going to be happy and may want to find another table. Sexual violence is NOT permitted at my tables, for example.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Great point about the need for emotional intelligence and balancing expectations when they differ player to player/GM. I am 100% with you on setting clear boundaries in terms of conduct that clearly has no part in the game. With regard to the differences for style, I have tried to resolve it by leaning a bit heavier into a player’s preferred style for side quests related to their PC (it is not a perfect system and it varies a lot, but I think the players appreciate the effort and have been increasingly cutting each other, and me, some slack). My Table is typically 7 PCs (up from 5) and it feels like I have had to relearn so many things to make it work. Thank you for the post and feedback!

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply to Richard Goff Cancel reply