The
recent re-release of WotC Classic D&D PDFs, and in particular the release,
for the first time ever, of the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh basic game in PDF form has
prompted some people to ask what the future of the OSR and Labyrinth Lord will be.
The
unsatisfying reality is that at this stage I think any prediction of what this
will do to the OSR is only speculation. But I think the future of the OSR would
be equally nebulous even if WotC had not released its classic PDFs again. I've
always held the view that the predominant boost in popularity of the OSR was
due not to 4th edition D&D so much as the death of Gary Gygax. Much of the
blogging scene that resulted from it reflected interest in revisiting or
rediscovering the roots of D&D. So many blogger topics were related to
dissecting the old style game and style of play, an exercise (though fun) that
is most certainly not new, and neither were the majority of the insights. I
never found much of the revisionist history going on (still going on) of much
use. What was new and of tremendous
value was the large amount of creative output that could be shared with a wider
audience.
So
the time we enter into now is further removed from the sorrow many of us felt
at Gary's passing. People have revisited that youth and those old rules, and
pretty much said what they needed to say. That exercise is over. The irony is
that the OSR started as a means of preserving the old rules, but now in what
has been dubbed by some as the "second wave," that objective has been
altered to claim that the natural evolution of this process of rediscovery
should lead to new "innovations." I would argue that a lot of what
we're seeing is now that the exercise of self exploration through earlier
D&D is over for a lot of people, those who declare it is time to move on
are the same people who had moved on from earlier D&D in the past. So it
isn't the original form of the game that needs to move on, it's that the
interests of some have moved on.
The
idea of innovations is what the OSR was directly opposed to at the beginning.
Don't get me wrong, it is great for people to take D&D and make it
"theirs," even publish it, but frankly any claims that this is the
way it is supposed to be only benefit
those who feel they need to justify the existence of another house-ruled
D&D. Or put words into the mouths of dead men and claim that a new game is
constructed the way it was meant to
be. Or take something as extemporaneous as an "Appendix N" and sell
it as a manifesto rather than a
simple inspirational reading list. Those of us who helped build the foundation
of what would be the (at least commercial) aspect of the OSR where doing it as
a reaction against the edition treadmill, against viewing classic games as
outdated. Little did we know that in so doing, a new treadmill from many
sources rather than only one would spring from the seeds we planted. That people
would take our work and do the exact thing we were opposing, claim it is past
its expiration date, and here is a new improved version with fresh innovations.
But one person's innovations look like a solution begging a problem to someone
else, and what you find works for your home table is great but that doesn't
mean other people should see it as the natural new path.
In
retrospect, how could it have gone any other way? When OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord
were written, they were the canaries in the coal mine. People watched and
waited, mostly thinking we were crazy to want to publish obsolete games, but
also waiting to see if we were sued into oblivion. That didn't happen, which
emboldened others to follow in those footsteps. Except once the various
ecological niches of the OSR were filled, the only way to spread was laterally.
If you've decided to publish old-school products you have a choice to make. Do
you create supplements for a game someone else publishes, supporting their
brand, or do you release your own game? The answer lies in the moves LotFP,
Autarch, and others have made in recent years.
If
it sounds like I'm being negative about this, it is only from the perspective
that rhetoric and marketing seems to want to stomp on others to justify the
existence of the newer games. From an open gaming perspective, the various
spin-off house rule systems are all natural, certainly inevitable, and overall
healthy developments.
If
you have the vision that the original games should go on unchanged like a termite
caught in amber (e.g. many posters at the KnK Alehouse), then what has happened
recently is a bad thing. But one of the often overlooked aspects of the OSR is
that the movement is grounded not just in old-school games, but also open source
moral values. It isn't enough anymore to just have old WotC PDFs available, or
one-off print runs of AD&D. The OSR means, as Mario of Wizardawn once
cleverly put it, not just "Old School Revival," or "Old School
Renaissance," but equally as important, "Open Source Rules."
I
can envision an OSR Ecosystem where there are a variety of retro-games, some
more traditional like OSRIC and Labyrinth Lord, and others derived from those
works that add their authors' personal touches, like ACKS and ASSoH, where we
view these in their creative open-source spirit rather than getting caught up
in the competitive market-speak that wants to justify through supposed
innovation. Even though there is a commercial element, almost no one is making
an actual living at this work. At best people are supplementing a family income
from this business. That's why I think people should keep things in perspective
and ratchet down the competitiveness to properly reflect the low stakes. I
don't see ego as a valid stake.
The
future of the OSR is as much in the open source movement as it is in the
old-school movement. Something some people may have forgotten (or never knew)
is that when the OSR as we know it started in 2006, WotC had a lot of the 1e
and basic catalogs available as PDFs. It was only later in 2008 that they were
removed from sale. My point is that the presence of legal PDFs didn't prevent
the creation or perceived need for OSRIC, and likewise once the excitement dies
down I doubt it will influence the success or failure of the current commercial
side of the OSR. Having books available as PDFs is great. However, many people
would still prefer print copies. Even if reprints or a POD option happens for
B/X and other rule sets, the open source element will still be there. Labyrinth
Lord is still the best brand proxy for third party publishers who use the OGL,
and the open content from Labyrinth Lord and other retro games will continue to
give people the tools they need to create their own gaming materials.
The
OSR Ecosphere is changing, not dying. WotC has added their material back to the
ecosphere where it was in the beginning, and I think that will only strengthen
the cause for old-school gaming. People have already been converted to the idea
that the older versions of the game are just as valid as the recent ones, and
WotC's recent business decisions only reinforce that. They obviously see value
in these products now, even if they didn't seven years ago. When Labyrinth Lord
was released I suspect they didn't think much if anything about the
Moldvay/Cook/Marsh set of rules, but this time around it was among their first
releases. They "get it" now even if they didn't before, and if Labyrinth
Lord had some small part in that I consider it a success.
For additional views see Blackrazor's recent posts
here and here, and Blood of Prokopius here.
