TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Oh, there's way more than that. There's a thread on RPG.net where someone is collating links to OSR games, there's over a hundred at this point.
OSR What Has Caused the OSR Revival?
We have a rather nice wiki page right here which collates them, too:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showwiki.php?title=Retroclones-and-Older-D-and-D-Editions
Quite a while back there was a poll here on EnWorld, a similar one on RPGNet and another on a site I forget, which asked which edition people preferred.
The editions were broken down into BX or related, AD&D, 2E, 3E/3.5/Pathfinder, 4E, Next (roughly, I forget the exact breakdown).
I found two things interesting.
3E/3.5/Pathfinder roughly had 25%
4E roughly had 25%
All older editions (and clones) shared 50% of the market
The older editions are fairly compatible, for the most part, so I found it very interesting that a large part of the market enjoyed these older games (game designs).
You could call it nostalgia, or perhaps they just worked fine.
I wish I could get more data on this.
The editions were broken down into BX or related, AD&D, 2E, 3E/3.5/Pathfinder, 4E, Next (roughly, I forget the exact breakdown).
I found two things interesting.
3E/3.5/Pathfinder roughly had 25%
4E roughly had 25%
All older editions (and clones) shared 50% of the market
The older editions are fairly compatible, for the most part, so I found it very interesting that a large part of the market enjoyed these older games (game designs).
You could call it nostalgia, or perhaps they just worked fine.
I wish I could get more data on this.
dd.stevenson
Super KY
Short version: unmet demand.
Long version: 3E inadvertently killed a couple of major playstyles.
1) Skills, especially spot and perception, turned out to be a poison pill for player-skill based exploration
2) Steep power curves narrowed the scope for sandbox play, and made life difficult for mixed level parties
There were several other factors that reinforced these trends (build-based character generation, WBL, etc.) that could be overcome by some thoughtful houseruling, but these two were the game killers IME.
Those of us who wanted wotc to roll back those changes with 4E were disappointed, to say the least. And, since early 4E seemed hellbent on disappointing as many people as possible, there were a lot of people open to alternatives. And then the thing sort of just snowballed--like Paizo, but much much smaller and more fragmented.
Long version: 3E inadvertently killed a couple of major playstyles.
1) Skills, especially spot and perception, turned out to be a poison pill for player-skill based exploration
2) Steep power curves narrowed the scope for sandbox play, and made life difficult for mixed level parties
There were several other factors that reinforced these trends (build-based character generation, WBL, etc.) that could be overcome by some thoughtful houseruling, but these two were the game killers IME.
Those of us who wanted wotc to roll back those changes with 4E were disappointed, to say the least. And, since early 4E seemed hellbent on disappointing as many people as possible, there were a lot of people open to alternatives. And then the thing sort of just snowballed--like Paizo, but much much smaller and more fragmented.
Last edited:
saskganesh
First Post
Free, fun and easy-to-teach. Easy-to-mod. Supports many styles of play. Very accessible. Lots of community and legacy support.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
Nostalgia 1: the state of being homesick 2: a wistful or excessively sentimental sometimes abnormal yearning for return to or of some past period or irrevocable condition.
- Webster's 9th New Collegiate
If you think it's all just nostalgia I respectfully suggest you either have overly narrow views of what the hobby is now versus what it once was, or you don't have an accurate idea of the definiton of that word. It is not nostalgia to see the rules for a game abandon things that are considered by many to be vital elements, and subsequently decide to play a game with rules that revive things that you prefer about older editions over newer editions. OSR games are created and succeed because of unmet demand that new rulesets are actually responsible for creating. That level of demand is much more than nostalgia could ever hope to generate.
It is manifestly clear that each new edition of D&D has had its detractors even while still in development much less turning away from them after their actual release and you can't long for a time or a condition from some past period if it hasn't even ended yet. That is not nostalgia at work nearly so much as the simple inability to please everyone all the time. With D&D in particular a new edtion has come to mean that you either drink the Kool-aid that the developer mixes for you, or you get "left behind" because support for any and all previous editions was killed (likely in attempts to pressure players to purchase new rules which they would otherwise NOT be inclined to). The OSR movement survives and thrives because people sometimes prefer alternative, and already established approaches to the rules for valid and quantifiable reasons. Nostalgia for older rules may even be sentimentality but the OSR exists because the conditions are NOT irrevocable and the desire to play according to those older rules is a SENSIBLE desire, not a fanciful one.
MHO
- Webster's 9th New Collegiate
If you think it's all just nostalgia I respectfully suggest you either have overly narrow views of what the hobby is now versus what it once was, or you don't have an accurate idea of the definiton of that word. It is not nostalgia to see the rules for a game abandon things that are considered by many to be vital elements, and subsequently decide to play a game with rules that revive things that you prefer about older editions over newer editions. OSR games are created and succeed because of unmet demand that new rulesets are actually responsible for creating. That level of demand is much more than nostalgia could ever hope to generate.
It is manifestly clear that each new edition of D&D has had its detractors even while still in development much less turning away from them after their actual release and you can't long for a time or a condition from some past period if it hasn't even ended yet. That is not nostalgia at work nearly so much as the simple inability to please everyone all the time. With D&D in particular a new edtion has come to mean that you either drink the Kool-aid that the developer mixes for you, or you get "left behind" because support for any and all previous editions was killed (likely in attempts to pressure players to purchase new rules which they would otherwise NOT be inclined to). The OSR movement survives and thrives because people sometimes prefer alternative, and already established approaches to the rules for valid and quantifiable reasons. Nostalgia for older rules may even be sentimentality but the OSR exists because the conditions are NOT irrevocable and the desire to play according to those older rules is a SENSIBLE desire, not a fanciful one.
MHO
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
All of the above. I suspect it's the combination of nostalgia with a streamlined, simple, yet highly flexible and customizable game.
Heck, I've even been working on my own OSR variant -- trying to blend d20 game mechanic consistency with B/X design simplicity and a few more choices and modern tweaks. It's fun!
Heck, I've even been working on my own OSR variant -- trying to blend d20 game mechanic consistency with B/X design simplicity and a few more choices and modern tweaks. It's fun!
I often wonder if there is a large difference in how various editions were designed.
It's pretty apparent that the early editions were "designed during play". As in, parts were added to the game when they were deemed "fun", or necessary for a sense of balance.
The more modern designs always seem to try and "correct problems", which is a fine goal... but they don't seem to be a "product of play" like older editions were.
I'm not sure if this has made a great difference... but I would assume that the first style of design would be created "for play"... while the second style of design might be more apt to create a "game the system" type of play.
If that makes sense.
It's pretty apparent that the early editions were "designed during play". As in, parts were added to the game when they were deemed "fun", or necessary for a sense of balance.
The more modern designs always seem to try and "correct problems", which is a fine goal... but they don't seem to be a "product of play" like older editions were.
I'm not sure if this has made a great difference... but I would assume that the first style of design would be created "for play"... while the second style of design might be more apt to create a "game the system" type of play.
If that makes sense.
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
Just to add to what I said, it is not mere whimsy that WotC is incorporating (or at least attempting/claiming to do so) ideas and elements from older editions into Next. The only logical conclusion for doing that or saying that is that they recognize that they have NOT appealed to a sizeable and/or growing segment of customers. Looking BACK for guidance on a new ruleset is almost certainly not an attempt to appeal to nostalgia, but acknowledgement that some of what they have excised before is actually needed and desired.
Similar Threads
