"The OSR: Rumors of My Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated."

I don't think anyone can claim that I'm an "at the cutting edge" blogger or gamer. I'm a tired, aging grognard. Content to grumble away in my tiny corner of the internet, barely beyond an echo chamber. I am alternatively amazed and intimidated at the opinions out there in gaming land. Occasionally I come across something I agree with heartily, more often with stuff I just find mildly entertaining or useful and then there are times like this. Times when someone engages me so profoundly on an intellectual level I just have to reply. Consider me behind the times, but I just came across Marcia B.'s The OSR Should Die post.

Wow. If nothing else this writer is clearly intelligent. I wondered as I read on if she was a philosophy grad student, or doctor of sociology, or simply a polymath. I was impressed not only with the knowledge she brought to bear in her gaming analysis, but her erudite writing ability. Following her arguments was a bit of a challenge, and for some time I shifted my opinion on exactly what her theme or thesis was; and now I'm not sure one can reduce her essay to only one thesis. 

I mean clearly her point is that it is time to give up the rather useless term OSR; but it goes deeper than that. It was near the end of her essay where she talked about nostalgia, that I thought I might have a grasp on her motive. 

"The banner of old-school play was upheld by too many groups with too many desires which overlapped and contradicted and crossed paths and diverged again. None of them held onto the banner because it was necessarily accurate for themselves or because they were its rightful owners, but because the banner is a signifier of a desire to return to the past ... As such, it doesn’t really signify anything as much as it acts as an ideological rallying call to return to some tradition."  -- Marcia B.

So much is being said here. Marcia has developed an argument that OSR as a term is a false objectification. There is no definitive "OSR", but rather a term which people use to hang their desires upon. Ostensibly a desire to return to the past. However, as Marcia also points out, this return to the past is a mythic past not rooted in reality per se, at least in many cases. But in terms of object oriented ontology it is possible to give object status to abstract concepts such as the OSR. The trick is in examining whether such a term deserves status. But in the paragraph above, Marcia clearly objectifies the term as an "a signifier of a desire to return to the past," and "an ideological rallying call to return to some tradition."

What had originally spawned the OSR, grognards pining for new AD&D material, was perhaps really never a desire to return to the past as much as a desire for support for their preferred edition. Now, she acknowledges, and I agree that many of us in the group, and I count myself as one, did long for the past. But practically speaking we simply wanted TSR back producing new 1e material. I myself wrote extensively on the golden age of TSR and imagined what it's return would look like. And in this sense, the "tradition" is very clearly marked as how the industry supported 1e and how we played and are continuing to play AD&D. In this sense a "preserved" past. 

Now Marcia, it seems to me, will go on to assert that the tradition itself is illusory. Not of the sort imagined by current OSR creators and producers. And I also agree here. The current state of what people call OSR has so developed and extended the game and its concepts that it has ranged far and wide from a "way" the game was played in the past. This was because in the development of the old school idea several things occurred. 

Many who might have played AD&D in their youth began to realize they weren't playing RAW back in the day. And the more they came to grips, as critically thinking adults, that the AD&D rules were a little challenging to play RAW, they realized the games they recalled as youth were not exactly concordant with the AD&D ruleset. This led some back to Original D&D on a quest to discover the real roots of how they played. Now in some cases this arose organically. For instance, I never played OD&D. But I was taught to play by four gamers who had all cut their teeth on OD&D. So a lot of my playstyle of AD&D had been influence by an OD&D playstyle (or at least a playstyle based on the OD&D ruleset). I didn't really understand this until I processed my own renaissance (literally rebirth). 

However, as many of us grappled with this distinction in reconciling the actual AD&D ruleset with what we recalled from our youth, OD&D didn't quite seem to fit either. So quite a few retreated to B/X. Now I owned B/X Moldvay-Cook but back then I could clearly smell the differences and never actually played that version. So like others, B/X didn't quite seem the right sized hat either. 

Now, a sizeable group of grognards had never really shifted to AD&D when it came out. Their introduction to D&D was through a different route. Either Holmes, Moldvay Cook initially, or they migrated from 0e to Basic as it was closer in spirit to the 3little brown books. Even if they tried AD&D, the fact was they preferred the Holmes, or later Moldvay-Cook or even the quite late Mentzer BECMI version. I sort of envied these players for awhile. They were actually closer to OD&D than my AD&D was, and enjoyed that free wheeling style so indicative of classic play. And it doesn't need to be said that it was easier to emulate the old style of play with the basic/original rules. But where was the right version for me? 

So you had players from the mid 70's to the mid 90's who were all not sold on 3.5 and were pining for something else. It was as much exploration as it was emulation. We were looking for the feel we recalled, and it was rarely embodied in the full rulesets we were now reading. Yes, you had those fully satisfied with AD&D RAW, or having came to terms with its more arcane rules and were vibing away with it. You also had those who were playing Original (0e) and Classic (Basic). But many still did not have a home.

It was these originals who began toying with rulesets and creating simulacra of the old games. Some in an effort to capture the "feel" of the past. Others who were taking 0e's injunction to heart by "imagining the hell out of it!" Thus you have the rise of the OSR as Marcia seems to be picturing it. You still have all of these gamers who might be said to fall within the general moniker or label of OSR, but you also have an entirely new crop drawn by the fertile ground for creativity and invention that found a home within the movement. This was due in part to the efforts of old school proselyters, and others just wondering what all the furor was about. Some damn fine product has been produced that fits all over the map as regards "old school" Beautiful, crazy, weird and gobs of fun in some cases. Also, controversial, edgy and offensive to whichever group chose to take issue. 

But this elucidation is not Marcia's point. For you see, this grand crazy carnival that tends to be labelled "old school" is not all that old school anymore. It isn't rooted in the past. And even if it is in some cases, this past is also emblematic of all sorts of unsavory elements that have impeded the OSR's success. She spends more than a few words on the effect of Zack Smith's crimes on the OSR as a brand. There is an implied problem also extant in the "past" many of the OSR proponents seek to enshrine. We all know the subtler controversies heaped upon fine veteran gamers like Ed Greenwood and other younger gamers like Alexander Macris and the list, which goes on, is truly, lamentably, long. Not to mention Wizards choice to distance itself from controversial content. And the travesty of the subsequent roasting and cancellation of the very founders of the hobby itself. So the move away from the idea of "old" seems multilayered and nuanced in the extreme.

I am sure that there will be those who may see in my analysis of Marcia's excellent essay a slanted perspective, if not outright wrong headedness. But ultimately what I am positing here is that Marcia's purpose may be more about redeeming the OSR than letting it die. 

As first Marcia points out that because the OSR means so many things, it is useless as a term and therefore we should jettison it--it should be allowed to die. But moreover that the term is rooted in a false notion of the past, and therefore not in the past at all. She elegantly outlines that the developments of the OSR designers are only peripherally connected to a past playstyle and in truth could be called a new playstyle. A creative development that only has a tangential relation to the past if any. If we can jettison the term and its false connection to the past we can free ourselves of all the ugly baggage that it might entail. 

The other possibility is that some feel constrained by OSR assumptions of one camp or another. Must it be rules light? c.f. OSRIC Must it rely on player skill? c.f. Classic Fantasy. And on and on. The sheer variety of works that have been produced by the OSR mitigates against such an assumption. As does the supposed desire to remove ourselves from problematic material. c.f. LotFP. Would abandoning the term OSR free our constraints, that also appear not to exist?

I suggest the same thing has happened to the term Dungeons & Dragons. I've argued this very point on my blog in the past. What "is" Dungeons and Dragons. At one point I actively argued that no game past 2e could rightly be called Dungeons & Dragons; the mechanics having been usurped by the d20 system. As my arguments progressed in various essays I grappled first with the fact that Original Dungeons & Dragons was also technically a very different animal, and that AD&D had been such a development that it might fundamentally differ from the original. Then an astute friend pointed out that we must admit that the term Dungeons & Dragons was an IP, and that anyone who owned the IP had the proper right to call their game Dungeons & Dragons. And further still my thoughts developed to consider the fact that playstyle could vary so much, especially in Original and Classic (Basic/Expert), that one's experience of Dungeons & Dragons could vary considerably even within the same edition. 

Why the deep concern over terms and definitions? Methinks thou protesteth too much. But such is grist for the philosopher's mill, and the OSR has also been the birthplace of deep and meaningful gaming philosophy. Why does it matter? Well, because it does. But also, such battles inevitably rest in not only foundational ontologies, but in ethics and metaphysics. Is it "right" to include games I don't like in a term I identify with. Well, to those of us more progressive thinkers who still read Marion Zimmer Bradley, enjoy JK Rowling and still buy Zack Smith's gaming material, and to those who don't and won't, such issues are clearly relevant ethically. What is D&D smacks to me as much of metaphysics as it does of ontology. As does what is the OSR. Humans are inherently a philosophical race, I mean we invented it after all. Or re-discovered it if your preferences run to Plato. The nature of things we love and seek to understand just flow in those channels. 

So what's my view? Well, I'm a lot less comfortable with absolutes these days. Marcia herself leaves to other writers and perhaps gamers to figure out what to do about it. But my opinion on Marcia's essay is, beyond the fact that it is a well written philosophical powerhouse, that she is calling less for the death of the OSR and more of a redemption of it's potential to a true renaissance broken free from the chains of its medieval scholasticism. She never decries the brilliant prolifera of its creativity, it seems instead she yearns for freedom to allow gaming creativity to grow past it's roots. I think others have already embraced the concept, hence the terms like New School Revival, New School Gaming and the like. While such a change is laudable, and a veritable fact, the rumors of the OSR's death have been greatly exaggerated. The OSR is and will continue to go strong, as exactly what Marcia objectified it as, "a signifier of a desire to return to the past," and "an ideological rallying call to return to some tradition."

Aren't we lucky to have such a deeply rich hobby.

What Level Did We Get To?

Many talk about a sweet spot at which levels you get the most out of play in whatever iteration of D&D you are playing. I am not going to try and cross that bridge, and am not informed enough to say much about high level AD&D play. 

We played intermittently in my youth. At first it was rare to have someone hit 3rd level without dying, but that was largely due to my ignorance in DMing. We would often play weekend sessions. We were more of an adventure driven group than a campaign driven group. A campaign we took to just be the same characters having passed through a series of adventures. And series was only loosely defined. We really didn't even refer to this as a campaign. Naturally your experience may differ, and I'm sure guys who played every day after school might have had different results. 

With that in mind we rarely passed 10th level. The high level characters I recall were a 9th level fighter, a 15th level magic user, an 11th level Paladin, an 8th level ranger, a 12th? level ninja (Dragon Magazine Ninja), a 14th level halfling thief, and my own 11th level magic user. Those were heights we achieved. And there were a myriad of lower level characters sprinkled in and about. And we never had a problem playing at those levels. We were always challenged. 

I've heard of people playing higher level and it becoming difficult, but they must have meant in excess of level 20. Or ran very different games than we did. And many of those mentioned above were played for literally years -- from age 12 to over age 20 in players years in some cases. Levelling was not easy. It was a long term commitment. And we loved it. Those 

I'm not sure what that says about us, about AD&D or gaming, but there it is.

A definition of Classic?

An excellent series of essays on aspects of what might be termed the "classic" dungeon crawl over at All Dead Generations. Check them out:

 https://alldeadgenerations.blogspot.com/p/the-classic-dungeon-crawl-theory.html

What I played

 I've been thinking a lot about what "my" D&D looks like. Lot's of ground's been covered since 1981 when I started playing. And my tastes were influenced by the game as it developed, and by the increasing proliferation of fantasy and science fiction that in large part was influenced by D&D. A creative feedback loop. James Raggi did a great job of talking about this here. 

But in the fondest parts of my gaming life, what did I play? What rules did we use? What did we love and what did we hate, not understand or simply not use?

• We started rolling 3d6 in order to pick a class. This was the way I was taught by the guys that had been playing since Original D&D. 
• We later added 4d6, first in order and then arranged as we like, or trading two for one to increase some abilities. We also experimented with other ability generation methods from the DMG, but all these felt sort of like cheating.
• We used the AD&D classes.
• We sometimes used classes from Dragon, but we argued about what class should be allowed, as some were clearly created to just be NPCs. 
• We used all the races in the PHB, influenced by Dragon and later Unearthed Arcana. But we did not use "monster" races and tended to stick with the PHB core. One thing that never seemed to make sense to us was race as class. We never played that way.
• Sub races were considered part of the game, but it became clear with time that subraces could also be campaign specific
• We did use class restrictions fairly rigorously, but did not pay near as much attention to level limits. Truthfully few demi-humans were played, largely because of these restrictions. I almost always played humans, as I felt like I could identify with them more. I wanted to be the adventurer I was playing. Call it lack of imagination, as some people don't even want to be human and love playing as all sorts of different races. But the fact ism all the main characters in our group back in the day, with one exception, were human. The one exception was a halfling thief. 
• We used and loved the magic items in the DMG, and they played an integral part in the game. 
• We used 1d6 individual initiative, unmodified. We later changed to d10 as we liked the idea of breaking actions into segments of six seconds. But we also knew the math didn't quite work out, so ended up using it sort of like d6 initiative. 
• We used the combat tables, but little else in related to combat. We did not use surprise, weapon adjustment or speed factors, etc. 
• AC as was from the PHB.
• Spells as per PHB, though we only gave lip service to material components, but spent more attention to duration, and a little to casting times, but not enough to modify initiative intelligently. 
• Starting Gold generation at level 1, and pre-purchase of equipment as listed in PHB.
• We used most equipment, but didn't spend much time on resource allocation or encumbrance
• There were later ideas that made character generation fun, mostly from Dragon, Survival Guides or UA. Random tables like heritage, background social class, family structure, non-weapon proficiencies and the like. We also liked the age table and secondary skills table from the DMG, but they rarely mattered after play began. 
• We loved exceptional strength but mostly just for the to hit and damage bonus. We never rolled to open stuck doors, but occasionally used bend bars lift gates. 
• We did use rolls for secret doors.
• Intelligence for languages, but rarely for spell bonuses or rolls to learn. Same for wisdom, but we did like the extra spells. Dexterity to AC and to hit, but rarely for reaction. Con for hp, but rarely needed to roll resurrection or survival shock. And charisma rarely for anything.
• Speaking of charisma we never used followers or retainers.
• We used 9 point alignment.
• We rarely played assassins, bards were impossible, but just about every other class made an appearance. 
• We did not use gender ability restrictions.
• We gave lip service to racial preference but it was never a real issue.
• We did use weapon and armor restrictions
• We did use Vancian casting of course
• We did have some multiclassed demihuman characters, but few lasted very long.
• Languages were used, but not alignment language, we wrote it down but really didn;t know what it meant.
• We did use weapon proficiencies, attacks pre round for fighters and eventually specialization, but this was a late addition.
• Barbarian and Cavalier were rolled up but rarely played with
• We did use missile weapon ranges and rates of fire and reload times.
• We understood time as 1 minute rounds, divided into segments that somehow mattered for spell casting and initiative, but that rarely came into play, and that turns were ten minutes. 
• Distance we knew was feet (') inside and yards (") outside, but even that wasn't always crystal clear. 
• Light range and duration a bit, movement in theory
• Psionics, 1 time. 
• Most of the DMG was a mystery, but could sometimes solve tough questions if we could find an answer therein.
• Experience, 1 gp per experience and back of DMG to look up xp for monsters.
• We loved the concept of planes and planar structure and used deities in the DDG for our clerics, but in a rather simplistic way generally. 
• We only used critical hits and fumbles later on, and generally played death at 0 hp.
• Later we played around with death at -10 and variants but mostly death at 0, and resurrection rarely came up.
• Saving throws pretty much as in the DMG.
• Rarely did we play with morale. 

It's Been a Year

Both since I wrote a post and since I've played. Well, we had a session or two, one shots. 5e. At one point I had agreed to play 5e as a player, but was done DMing. But even that stopped awhile back. I was just not enjoying myself. The last session I did DM a short 3 hour one shot. I occasionally get so game-sick (home sick for gaming) that I'll pull those who I know would be up for a 5e romp together to get a fix--albeit a bit watered down. 

I've been thinking lately about the last time I had a good AD&D session, which was almost 15 years ago when I convinced the kids at the school club to start an OSRIC campaign. We played for over three years, and the kids loved it. And truthfully, I didn't do much convincing. I simply told them if they wanted me to continue DMing, we would be playing first edition. And, as I said, they loved it!

So maybe that's a lesson for now. I simply put it out there that AD&D is what I'm running and invite anyone who would like a seat at the table.