Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
(+1)

Most of the terms and types are significantly older than my take on theory - a fair number from Man, Play, and Games by Roger Callois in 1961, others from Jane McGonigal, some from Rec.Games.Frp.Advocacy, and of course the Forge.

And yeah.  A lot of OSR work is designed to start with what I call (I think accurately) the "Classical" playstyle... and then raising up the Agon, Fiero, Ludus, Venting joys.

Buuuut, there's also simultaneously reaction against 3.5 and 4th, which amped up the same things by binding, mechanistic means rather than loose, body of practice ones.  And there's also been, on and off, a strong dose of "No artificially-induced Kairosis!"

(+2)

I'd say that OSR games are very low on Ludus, as both the rules and the characters tend to be mechanically simple. There isn't much system to master. Instead, the usual focus is on understanding and mastering the fictional world. The degree of Agon or Venting seems very dependent on the particular group, while Fiero is the trait that seems pretty uniformly emphasized.

(+2)

Hmm.

I'd put the Rules Cyclopedia and Hackmaster in the OSR category (and the Cyclopedia as core to some gamers there I know).  So...   I think we'd need to talk specific games and artifacts to reach full agreement on the level of Ludus running around.

I think there might be some edge cases of OSR books with a lot of rules, but even in those cases the vast majority of the rules are hardly ever referenced in play (Hackmaster might be an exception, I haven't played that). I don't think I've ever seen a DM in an OSR game look something up in the rules, apart from spell descriptions and things like that.