What is OSR about?

Raven Crowking · Mar 29, 2010

For me, it was the discussion of game design philosophy related to 4e that made me stop and think, "These WotC guys just don't understand D&D". The "fixes" to the "problems" didn't understand what the problems were, or else failed to understand the underlying causes of the problems.

The more I read about WotC's "fixes", the more I realized that AD&D (or earlier) had already fixed the same problems, a long time ago, and it was design decisions in 3e that made them occur in the first place.

Of course, this is my perspective....based on what "D&D" means to me....and it made me realize that, while there are mechanical things I like about WotC-D&D, overall I prefer TSR-D&D. And hence the desire to create a fusion of WotC-era mechanics with TSR-era philosophy.

YMMV, and all that.

RC

Garthanos · Mar 29, 2010

Raven Crowking said:
The more I read about WotC's "fixes", the more I realized that AD&D (or earlier) had already fixed the same problems, a long time ago, and it was design decisions in 3e that made them occur in the first place.
RC

I am going to focus on something I do agree about what you just said... 4e actually re-embraced elements of AD&D and I would say even more fully embraced them.

An easy example is niche protection.

Another easy example is abstract hit points (abstract hit points should indeed recover with something approaching scene or episodic frequency ).

A less easy one is something I may have to explain. I will call it Combat Style

When I first saw to hit and damage being based entirely on strength I thought that sounded incredibly silly.... even just a minor amount of martial arts background... ought to have brought vastly differing conclusions but what if ... Strength is just one style? like Hard and Soft style martial arts in the real world... even hard versus soft is a uber simplification... that could be generalized .... some arts might emphasize creativity or discipline more? Some might emphasize perception or deception. Constitution allowing the instinct to override perceptions... and those with higher stamina.. playing out the battle so they have advantage over the burst strength dude whose ability fades over the course of the fight.

Winners play to there own strengths and there are incredibly many ways to do things. 4e took that element which may even have seemed minor... and carried out its implications in a way that gives me more.

Umbran · Mar 29, 2010

Ariosto said:
The notion that people posting about it here somehow validates it as a "real" movement is absurd.

Not at all, to me. "Movements" don't sit quietly in their rooms playing with their own toys.

Raven Crowking · Mar 29, 2010

Garthanos,

Suffice it to say that we disagree about a few things on your list, and leave it at that.

There's no reason to reopen old arguments. So long as you are happy with the game you are playing, that's all that counts.

For me, what the OSR is about is being happy with the game you are playing, pure and simple. I went back and reread my AD&D 1e books, and I played some Basic Fantasy with my 10-year old daughter. It was nice playing something a bit less complicated than 3e, but it still didn't quite satisfy my itch.

The chief tenet of OS games, IMHO, has always been: The game is yours; if you don't like something, change it. And that is what has engaged as much free time as I can spare for the last year or so.....making the system fit me as much as I am able.

And that, IMHO, is where all editions of D&D meet -- they are all someone's (or someones') attempt to make a system that fits their needs.

But just as it would be foolish of me to assume that your needs will be met by 1e, it is foolish of anyone to assume that 4e will meet any specific person's needs. Or RCFG. Or Labyrinth Lord. Or whatever.

Play what you like.

That's what the OSR is about, AFAICT and IMHO.

RC

Desdichado · Mar 29, 2010

The Shaman said:
So I don't know where you get the idea that I, or anyone else, was conflating persisting interest in older games with as what has come to be called the OSR.

From the post I responded to. :shrug: But it's not a big deal; I was just clarifying my opinion on it.

Garthanos · Mar 29, 2010

Raven Crowking said:
For me, what the OSR is about is being happy with the game you are playing, pure and simple.

That definition ...makes it a bit close to... meaningless.

ASIDE:
The Basic Roleplaying I know of is the underlying game of RuneQuest... The BRP part was very easy to improvise ... I have seen BRP mentioned recently is that what is being referred to? or is this BD&D.

Raven Crowking · Mar 29, 2010

Garthanos said:
That definition ...makes it a bit close to... meaningless.

That's not a definition; that's a motivation.

(And Basic Fantasy RPG is a retroclone, Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game)

RC

Garthanos · Mar 29, 2010

The Basic RPG =

Basic Roleplaying: Chaosium RPG System Core Rulebook - Chaosium - RPG at CoolStuffInc.com

TerraDave · Mar 29, 2010

The point of alienation

was somewhere between here:

and here:

The rise of a "lets go really far back and make 500 blogs about it" movement is something else.

TerraDave · Mar 29, 2010

The OSR is about going way back. Not just pre 3E.

To go back to my point upthread: what was amazing was how so many people rallied around 3E, including many who had stopped playing D&D for years.

Fragementation into camps, thats the norm. But you really weren't hearing so much about the OSR for years after 3E came out. Maybe its complexities and style issues drove people back, but it took a while.

What is OSR about?

Raven Crowking

First Post

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Umbran

Mod Squad

Raven Crowking

First Post

Desdichado

Hero

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Raven Crowking

First Post

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024

TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024

Similar Threads