2
\$\begingroup\$

I'm getting on the old side and I have no idea what makes this tag different from the "odd" tag. Is it supposed to represent a certain style of game? if so, does it really need a tag? This seems a horribly subjective tag.

EDIT: And what is OSR?

\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

IMO, the old-school tag doesn't really provide much value. In some cases it's used as a stand-in for a specific, older version of a game (such as odd).

It's also incredibly subjective. D&D third edition is the edition of D&D that I "grew up on." Does that qualify third edition as "old school?" Or maybe 2nd edition, which I played a couple times before I really got into role playing? Or does nothing published after 1980 count?

I think the important question here, is under what situations would a person want to search for "old-school", specifically? It seems to be mostly related to original D&D, which already has its own tag.

Edited to add:

What if I post a question about the D6 edition of the Star Wars Role Playing Game? Should that receive an old-school tag, since it's an older version of an existing property? What about the original World of Darkness? Or the D10 version of 7th Sea (Swashbuckling Adventures)?

Does the tag still have value if it applies to games beyond just Dungeons and Dragons?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ It is primarily used in reference to older editions of D&D. And your point has been brought up in many other forums and yet people continue to use "old school" to refer mostly to D&D. \$\endgroup\$ – RS Conley Aug 27 '10 at 19:48
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @RSConley I'm not surprised that D&D is most frequently referenced as old school, what with it being 1) very popular 2) very old 3) in possession of many editions. But as a general term, "old-school" isn't self explanatory on its own, and breaks the ability to watch/not watch D&D related tags with dd*. Beyond that, is a question tagged exclusively with "old-school" well defined? \$\endgroup\$ – AceCalhoon Aug 27 '10 at 20:32
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ If we want to use it purely for D&D -- which fits general usage, I agree -- then I'd say it should be [dd-osr]. \$\endgroup\$ – Bryant Aug 28 '10 at 15:37
1
\$\begingroup\$

I think it has some value, but it's limited? It is somewhat more focused than [indie] but will have some of the same issues in use.

\$\endgroup\$
1
\$\begingroup\$

Here are my thoughts on tags.

  1. They should be as specific as possible.
  2. They should speak to the widest audience possible. Not everyone knows and acronyms and jargon.
  3. We should have only those that are necessary. Tags should help with organizing and finding. Too many will become counter-productive.
\$\endgroup\$
0
\$\begingroup\$

In general it is used to when a question could applies to all of older editions of D&D. Probably including the oldest games like chivalry & sorcery, tunnels & trolls, Runequest, Traveller, etc.

But the focus in on D&D and while the different editions the same there are differences. They all need tags including one to encompass all of them at once.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ If the "old-school" tag refers purely to older editions of D&D, I think a renaming is in order (such as dd-old-school) for filtering purposes... There's no reason why similar behavior shouldn't be allowed for other RPG systems. \$\endgroup\$ – AceCalhoon Aug 27 '10 at 19:11
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ My feeling is that tags should reflect how people use terms. \$\endgroup\$ – RS Conley Aug 27 '10 at 19:45
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I have seen the term "Old School" used to refer to many things besides D&D. \$\endgroup\$ – AceCalhoon Aug 27 '10 at 20:22
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ An example where old-school isn't synonymous with odd add1.0 etc. is my question on 4e d&d about giving it the feel of some older editions. Similarly, one could ask a system-neutral question about osr design ideas. Perhaps osr is a better tag, but it is more esoteric and also potentially more emotionally charged. \$\endgroup\$ – Numenetics Aug 27 '10 at 22:18
0
\$\begingroup\$

I've seen a couple posts lately tagged with "osr". I think this (or old-school-renaissance) would be a good D&D specific alternative to old-school.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Do the people who use "osr" actually agree on what games are included? At any rate, I hate "osr" as a tag, because I think it's difficult to find information about old school renaissances/revivals/revolutions with just the abbreviation. \$\endgroup\$ – kodi Aug 28 '10 at 20:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ osr sounds good. \$\endgroup\$ – RS Conley Aug 28 '10 at 21:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ "osr" is too subjective a label, in my opinion. Some people think it refers to the retro-clones of D&D (eg Swords & Wizardry). Some people think it refers to completely new games that pay homage to older editions of D&D (Basic Fantasy). Some people think it applies to new games that imagine what a certain game might have looked like, had it been developed during the 70s (eg Encounter Critical). It also has a value judgment attached to it in some circles (old school being good, newer games having lost their way, etc). I say drop it. \$\endgroup\$ – cr0m Feb 1 '11 at 5:54
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @cr0m Interesting points. Very similar reasoning to my gut reactions on a few other tags. I guess here's what I see that makes it seem acceptable to me... Those are three very clear categories. And they're all very close (early D&D, clones of early D&D, modern games in an early D&D style). Compare to "old-school" which is anything old or old-like, or "indie" which covers a variety of gameplay variations, publisher size, and/or look and feel of the product. As to the value judgement... I really haven't seen any such problems with the tag in the past few months. \$\endgroup\$ – AceCalhoon Feb 1 '11 at 14:36
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's possible that the term has become less fuzzy since I stopped paying attention to the OSR bloggers, when I stopped being as involved in my own Basic D&D project (redvan.wikidot.com). \$\endgroup\$ – cr0m Feb 2 '11 at 0:22
0
\$\begingroup\$

Based on the criteria in the StackOverflow blog post, The Death of Meta Tags, I think the [old-school] is a meta tag. Since these are now "explicitly discouraged", I think that it should be removed.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I disagree. It is not like [subjective] or [beginner] - it is a term used to cover a range of games. Any grouping is never 100% objective - there's several music albums which one might argue whether they are rock and roll or country & western, but that doesn't make the labels invalid. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk - Justice for Monica Aug 28 '10 at 14:39

You must log in to answer this question.