The current Olde School Renaissance movement reminds me of the emperors new clothes, so I'll go ahead and be the mouthy little brat who says as much. There is some strutting about of I created this or that, but is it original and new? Nope, decidedly not. It is new material for an abandonware system. In some cases its a simple new coat of paint on the old jalopy. For sure there is a lot of good material and excellent resources being developed for a much beloved system...but where is the original? Where is the new creation from the old framework? OSR is simply a back tracking down a well worn path. Reprinting older material as new in an effort to rediscover the RPG has as much depth as a Texas puddle.Using what's come before as a foundation to build something new makes sense. I do not see the new creation though, at least yet, from the seeds of the OSR movement. I see a lot of folks rediscovering the simpler game play of yore, and in some cases new eyes seeing role playing in this new light. That's all though, and honestly that's not enough.
It is not enough to sustain or to even grow interest in RPG gaming as a hobby. Revisiting the past to move forward makes sense, but revisiting, then settling in for a nice winter's nap is foolish. It's like peeing yourself in a navy blue suit, sure it makes you feel warm, but nobody really notices. Right now I see a lot of pleased fellows in blue suits, and it makes me nervous.
So will the OSR movement give birth to a new lite RPG rule set for the masses to enjoy? A "from the people, by the people, for the people" system that is rules lite, accessible and expandable? I like to think so, and I am working on my own stab at it. Otherwise there are going to be a lot folks standing around in wet navy blue suits stinking up the joint. Pardon me while I go change...
12 comments:
So will the OSR movement give birth to a new lite RPG rule set for the masses to enjoy? A "from the people, by the people, for the people" system that is rules lite, accessible and expandable?
No.
The people with an interest in making such a thing have too much emotional investment in D&D, which from a modern RPG-design perspective is a myopic juvenile mess that wouldn't have qualified for publication even a decade ago, never mind the obsessive-compulsive assemblage of esoterica that is AD&D. There are already plenty of rules-lite systems out there, but the 'OSR' kids don't actually want rules-lite systems; for the most part they want the systems they know, which are neither simulations nor story engines but some other designwise half-measure.
When people claim to want the 'vibe' of D&D, they also want (to some degree) its limitations and preoccupations and idiosyncrasies. Streamlined, interesting modern pulp systems like Savage Worlds don't seem to appeal much to the OSR crowd. Why not? Because it's the specific sorta-sim, sorta-Free design of D&D that appeals. The wargame-derived mechanism of it.
Or at least that's my half-psychoanalytic reading of the scene.
If you want a new rules-lite system, write one - but start from the heretical question, 'What is this ruleset for?' And put aside even the vaguest pretense of recreating D&D, which absolutely should not be a goal of the OSR (as you say). D&D is a designwise dead end. Modern rules-lite systems are the place to start.
"So will the OSR movement give birth to a new lite RPG rule set for the masses to enjoy?"
Sweeping psycho-analytical generalities aside, I do agree that the answer is "no."
No, because there's no such thing as "the OSR movement." There's just a bunch of people looking back at/enjoying/producing material for older games, each from his or her own perspective and with his or her own motivations. To call it a movement is a mistake, as this implies some sort of organization and shared goal, neither of which truly exist. It's more of a cluster of folks milling about in loose ideological proximity to one another. To expect that a non-existent entity will produce a revolutionary product is folly.
Moreover, the OSR folks, for the most part, are OSR folks because they're happy with older games that, despite their flaws (which most "retro-clones" aim to correct), appeal to them in ways that today's slick-but-overproduced games do not. (Thus the "old" in "old school.") Ask them to produce an entirely new game, the likely answer will be: Why re-invent the wheel? To expect that OSR people have any interest in creating an entirely new game is folly.
If you want a rules-lite game, there are plenty of them - old and new - out there. If you want to create one yourself, please do so! (Gaming being the heavily explored ground that it is, I doubt if you'll end up with a revolutionary game either way.)
If you want to see the OSR cluster produce such a thing, though, I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
Thanks you both illustrate very well a lot my thoughts and concerns about the OSR. Yet, I think what is missing is the idea that the OSR style of game play may spark someone not so dogmatically blinded by D&D into a new direction. My own hope is someone new to RPG's who experiences more free form less rules heavy RPG gaming will create something innovative. My own RPG system is is rules lite-but slide more towards the Melee/ Wizard d6 simple mechanics with more of the D&D style of dungeon exploration. New & Original? Nope. In play it takes what I like best of Melee/ Wizard (easy pick up and play, d6 based, no classes, skill based and flexible) with the dungeon exploration and free form, easy to create/ play D&D style of gaming. It won't change the world, but the mash up might be at least more interesting and generate something new rather than retreading Moldvay boxed set material in a new wrapper.
Did hot-rodding ever take over the mainstream of motor design and engineering? Did it ever want to?
Good point Chris. I'd point out that it is the rod market though that influenced (and continues to influence) the main stream auto market. From the stand point of Pop culture, this is especially true. You never see Buick La Sabre versus Volvo 240 in movies. From American Grafiti to Fast and The Furious its always the after market/ hot rod style that everyone wants and drives the cool factor in the auto industry and shapes the more vanilla versions of autos we find on the showroom floors. In fact the entire Scion brand is built around the after market cool factor!
It just goes to show that you can stand on the outside looking in and think you know what's going on, only to be wildly incorrect - something I see from many of the points in the original post and first three comments, which is a shame because this sort of misinformation does very little for the hobby as a whole.
@David Macauley -
If you have nothing to say other than 'Nanny nanny boo boo,' piss off. Else explain what's 'wildly incorrect' about all this discussion. I stand by my comment - I think the allure of the D&D paradigm (rigidly essentialist class/race/monster nonsense, thin behavioral descriptions, XP for acquisition/conquest, cod-medieval setting, etc.) is too strong for the OSR guys (they're all guys), who might have design chops but have shown exactly zero interest in building systems that leverage what's been known about RPG design since the mid-80's.
People don't get drawn to the OSR because they're interested in 'old-school roleplaying' in the abstract. The particular sim/freeform blend is what appeals to them.
If you disagree, state your disagreement instead of childishly trolling about.
@Wally
Nice that you can tar me with the childish troll brush after your little “boo hoo...piss off” tantrum, but yes fair point. I thought I should’ve explained myself further, but it was late at night and I was off to bed, besides which, trying to counter the same old worn-out clichés of misinformation is tiresome and preaching to the converted a waste of time, but here goes.
Wally, for all your wonderfully, self termed “half-psychoanalytic” (I would’ve gone for “wanky” myself) talk, you’ve fallen for the old corporate, money-spinning lie of rpg obsolescence – the belief that, like technology, a game’s rules can become outdated and useless. It’s interesting that the people who make this claim never seem to apply it to boardgames and champion the cause of updating the rules of Chess, because Chess is so clearly so out of touch with the modern world and how a boardgame should be played. The truth is you don’t like the old games and other people do, it’s personal preference, that’s all. It’s ok not to like something Wally, but poor form to justify it with unfounded criticism, which comes across as whiney ranting and hot air.
And yes, while it’s true that there is a section of the rpg community who are obsessed with Gygax and BtB 1e AD&D, they themselves are but a tiny niche within the Old School niche, and one that I would say is NOT the driving force behind the OSR. To suggest that there is zero interest within the OSR for rules-lite roleplaying is either disingenuous or simply sticking your head in the sand and ignoring not only what is going on with the game Swords & Wizardry, for instance (more a rules-lite toolkit than a game), but also to ignore the roots of the game that is being emulated by the very movement you despise. Just a quick browse through a few of the OS blogs and forums would dispel that lie.
@Fenway5
Your obsession with “new” misses the fundamental point of why there is in fact an OSR. The natural progression of the idea of rpg obsolescence is the belief that old = bad, new = good, and to take that a step further old = crap, new = fun. One of the favourite tactics of the anti-OSR brigade is to claim it’s all about nostalgia and while it’s true that nostalgia has a part to play, the plain simple fact is that people continue to play the older games because the find them fun. Yep, they actually not only enjoy them, but prefer them, in many cases, to the more modern games. It’s that old personal preference thing again. Now that is not to say there is nothing new happening within the OSR, but I don’t think you’re going to find such things while militantly waving your “Down with the OSR” placard.
Again, just a quick browse through OSR blogs and forums will show that there is a growing section of the movement that can’t be accused of being “guilty” of nostalgia at all. These are people who started gaming either with 2e or 3e or non-D&D games, but have fallen in love with the older games. It is this group who are largely responsible for seeing an expansion of exposure to both the clones and the older games, as they introduce them to their gaming groups. This is happening and over time, as it continues to grow, the tired clichéd accusations aimed at the OSR will be revealed as the nonsense they are.
To sum up all of the above, I honestly fail to understand the need to rubbish someone else’s gaming preferences, just because they don’t align with your own. That is neither clever nor constructive.
@Christopher B
While you understand that people love OS games because they find them fun (and to Wally and Fenway5 - isn’t that what our rpg hobby is all about, isn’t that the bottom line in all of this?), you then go on to fundamentally misunderstand the very basis of what a retro-clone is all about. The clones definitely do NOT try to “aim to correct” what you perceive to be flaws in the original games, they do in fact try to replicate those rules as closely as legally possible, or at least do so in the case of the two “truest” clones – Labyrinth Lord and OSRIC. Those near-clones that deviate a bit further from the original systems, do so more because of the author’s personal gaming preferences rather than a desire to fix faults.
To say that there is no OSR or movement is again a case of burying your head in the sand. A movement doesn’t need a public leader or organised council to be a movement. There are however several key figures amongst the clone authors, forum owners and blog writers, who are instrumental and influential in what is going on out there. Organised? No. Happening? Yep. We have recently seen Swords & Wizardry take out a silver in the ENies, and Goblinoid Games’ Labyrinth Lord and Mutant Future games have both been runners up in the last two Indie RPG Awards. The two OSR zines – Fight On! and Knockspell (as well as other S&W products) have made Lulu’s monthly Top 10 print sales this year, with Fight On! taking out a number 1 spot. Various OS products have made it into bricks and mortar gaming stores and even Eric Mona of Paizo/Pathfinder fame has shown some interest with his comment:
“And while we have not formally thrown our hats into the "old school" or rules-light field, our hearts are very sympathetic to the cause, and I wouldn't be too surprised to see something down the road.”
None of this has occurred just because the OSR is “a cluster of folks milling about in loose ideological proximity to one another” and to say so is perhaps a bit naive, which surprises me given the nature of your enjoyable blog.
Wally, for all your wonderfully, self termed “half-psychoanalytic” (I would’ve gone for “wanky” myself) talk, you’ve fallen for the old corporate, money-spinning lie of rpg obsolescence – the belief that, like technology, a game’s rules can become outdated and useless.
This is incorrect, boringly so. I'm not saying rules become obsolete because they get old. I'm saying D&D's rules should be obsolete because they're not very good.
There is, oddly enough, a difference.
I'll read your comment for real now! Thanks!
One of the favourite tactics of the anti-OSR brigade is to claim it’s all about nostalgia and while it’s true that nostalgia has a part to play, the plain simple fact is that people continue to play the older games because the find them fun.
Yes, of course. This doesn't constitute an argument though.
Do you disagree with the following statements? I imagine so. Care to say why?
* D&D is not a thematically/aesthetically mature game. Never has been.
* Thematically/aesthetically mature roleplaying games do exist; in general they have far more minimalist, reasoned/poetic approaches to rules design than any pre-4e edition of D&D.
* OD&D's mechanics are largely historical accidents owing to its derivation from tabletop wargames; its roleplaying/narrative elements stem from the ungainly retrofitting of those minis/wargame rules, rather than being baked in as in the best games of the last 20+ years.
* AD&D is neither simulation nor freeform nor narrative-driven game, but rather a hybrid whose complicated and arbitrary rules-body would not pass muster anymore, built on the foundation of D&D and introducing more unforced errors in design than it corrects.
If you grant some form of the above claims (and probably you don't, but stranger things have happened), how can you justify the traditionalist/preservationist attitude of the 'OSR'? Why not move on to richer, cleaner games with equally customizable worlds and more evocative mechanics?
Particularly if you're interested in building new systems and extensions and supplements and mechanics!
Wally, while I of course disagree with your opinion that older versions of D&D are full of "errors", I have no problems with most of the other points you make. However, and this has been the point of my comments, none of this is fact, but rather your personal opinion. And so while you can happily dismiss all I say as a non-argument, likewise your personal opinion of whether a game is good, bad, well-constructed or obsolete, is hardly a basis for a decent rebuttal or constructive criticism. You are of course entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine. Believe it or not I respect your opinions, but do don't think much of the rubbishing of other people's preferences, dressed up like a tart in lots of big words and highbrow talk. That truly does no-one any good.
Post a Comment