The real tragedy of the Old School Renaissance isn't outdated math, fragile character sheets, or clunky armor class rules. I don't think it actually has any of those things, I just think most modern people are dumb.
It’s the walling off of the mind.
The OSR took the historic provincialism of the D&D mindset and turned it up to 11. It transformed a specific, local play style—tactical adventure-wargaming with a pulp aesthetic squeezed between turns—into a totalizing worldview. It didn't just preserve an old game; it built a fortress, pulled up the drawbridge, and declared that everything outside the moat was fraudulent... while sneaking out to take ideas from the outside and hoping we wouldn't notice.
Don't worry, we did.
The Myth of Pure Emulation
You can see this insularity most clearly in how the movement talks about Appendix N. There is an orthodox claim that OSR mechanics represent the pure, distilled essence of classic Sword & Sorcery fiction. But they don't. At best, they ape it. They make the right noises, wave around Howard and Leiber, and pretend that rolling up a 6-down-the-line fighter somehow captures the wild, dynamic flexibility of Conan.
Conan isn't a "Class." He doesn't gain experience as a fighter and then dual class into rogue. His capabilities aren't hardcoded into a rigid progression table, and anyone who thinks so has never read Conan.
Which I have. All of it. Twice.
Same with Solomon Kane.
And Kull. Boy there really ain't anything for Kull in the OSR on a mechanical level.
So don't try that shit here, thanks.
The play experience of B/X doesn't feel like a Robert E. Howard or L. Sprague de Camp story, but a man-to-man tactical wargame derived from Chainmail, with just enough literary duct tape and blind hope connecting the bits to hold the vague shape of a narrative... which it is. And if you're lucky, the clone actually knows what it is and, thusly, does it well.
Most of them don't.
Why can't the OSR acknowledge this? Because insularity demands total self-sufficiency. To admit that the legion of B/X clones is a great tactical skirmish engine but a terrible literary emulator would mean admitting that there's other design languages at all, never mind that they may do the emulation better. And inside a walled garden, that kind of admission is heresy.
Yes, I just accused the entirety of the OSR of just being 4e, but not as honest.
The Antique Hammer
We saw this exact same intellectual paralysis during the early 2000s d20 explosion under the OGL. Designers back then had one hammer—the d20 engine—and suddenly every genre, setting, and emotion in existence had to be forced to act like a nail.
The OSR didn't break away from that insular logic. It simply picked up an antique hammer and demanded that all of TTRPG design stop evolving and start acting like a nail from 1974. And, again, I don't have issue with that antique hammer. I started teaching Chainmail to my kids, and they love it! I'm learning it and having a blast. I'm working up the courage to DM a 1e game. This isn't coming from a place of hatred, in the slightest. I think there's plenty to learn from the antique hammer, have said so publicly, and will continue to say so.
But when you refuse to look outside the canon, you miss better tools entirely. Look at the Hunt roll from Trophy Gold: it's literally a player-driven variant of the encounter check in all old-school games, but infinitely smoother, infinitely better, and much faster. I've been enjoying using old-school encounter rolls, don't get me wrong, but the loss of the Hunt roll is starting to grate. That. Tech. Is. Better. And it's not a question.
Similarly, games like Burning Wheel literally take the player-driven ideal of the OSR and actually make it central. Torchbearer, despite being clunkier, evolves ideas like character knowledge being a weapon, Town as a place of help and risk, and pushes them better than anything I've ever seen in the OSR.
Tooting mine own horn a second, Crescendo pushes player agency against Judge authority in ways actually addictive to OSR sensibilities: Hitting the Books, a bibliomancy that references everyone's journals and pushes it to the Judge to consolidate into one new meaning, is the apotheosis of the random encounter roll.
And there's tons of other examples. I'll say it: PBTA rolls are also random encounters evolved, and they can be used better.
But because they don't share the old-school lineage, these things (and more!) are routinely dismissed under the generic umbrella of "story games." It’s an intellectual shortcut—a way to discard ideas without having to engage with them... until they need something, at which point it's a natural evolution, as opposed to finding a good idea
Everything Within the State
This is where provincialism turns into dogma. The movement took the insular tendencies of the traditional D&D ecosystem and made a virtue out of its vices, echoing the totalizing slogan of 20th-century statism:
Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.
Replace "the State" with "the D&D Engine," and you have the modern OSR echo chamber.
If a design concept doesn't originate within early edition mechanics, or if it isn't put into that framework (the rest of the world calls this stealing, but the way), it doesn't count. If an insight comes from outside the walled garden, it is ignored or derided until it is put inside the walled garden, with nary an acknowledgment that someone else did it first, and may do it better even now.
The frustrating part is that the actual games are fine when stripped of the propaganda, including those little bits pilfered without humility.
The problem arises when someone looks across the table and claims that OSR is the purest manifestation of roleplaying, or that it holds an exclusive hotline to critical design truth. At that point, you aren't talking about game mechanics anymore. You are watching someone defend the borders of an isolated intellectual state.
OSR is a great engine for generating a very specific, procedural, tactical experience. But the moment its advocates pretend it is the sole metric for true roleplaying, they aren't engaging with game design—they're just worshipping the walls of their own fortress.
And Then the BROSR
Here’s the Short Version, Stripped of the Fortress Rhetoric
The old-school rules are a sharp, specific tool. Use them. Steal from them. Teach them to your kids. I do.
But stop pretending the tool is the only legitimate language of roleplaying, or that everything outside the 1974–1983 canon is either derivative trash or secret OSR waiting to be properly baptized. The moment you treat one historical playstyle as the sole metric of authenticity, you stop designing and start policing borders.
The best ideas in the broader hobby—player-driven procedures, sharper resource pressure, actual literary flexibility—don’t care about your lineage. They work whether or not they share a bloodline with Chainmail. Refusing to look at them doesn’t preserve purity. It just guarantees you’ll keep rediscovering the same wheels and calling the reinvention “natural evolution.”
OSR doesn’t need to be the State. It just needs to stop acting like one. The games will be fine. The walls were never load-bearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment