OSR What Has Caused the OSR Revival?

[Manbearcat]

In 1980 OSR was the only choice, be it D&D flavoured or Traveller flavoured or Runequest flavoured. Now we've had 30+ years to play many different types of games, I think the OSR is partly driven because now we have the ability to return to older games with a new set of eyes and look afresh at what they have to offer.

In other words, satisfaction with modern games can prompt a return to older ones as well as dissatisfaction.

I had a serious desire to run Traveller a while back. As it happens I chose to run Diaspora, but it was a serious contender for what I wanted to run at the time.

And I'm thinking about Dungeon Crawl classics in the new year. Although I might run Apocalypse World again. Which is what I mean - very different types of game to provide very different experiences.

This is a great post; very insightful and apropos to my own experience. I have a broad swath of gaming tastes. My enjoyment of running Dogs in the Vineyard or D&D 4e has done nothing to inhibit my spontaneous yearnings for Classic Traveler or 1e Dungeon Crawls. If anything, it enhances them and not because I dislike the former but rather because the nuance within the varying play experiences force me to analyze the mysteries of my creative agenda and how system and technique perpetuate those interests.

I've become a better GM with some of my older, favorite systems (and playstyles) because of my exposure to modern games and their agendas. Its provided me a deeper understanding of what I'm trying to do and what the systems are perpetuating.

 

[Elf Witch]

While even Gary said he "goofed" with AC's into negative numbers, nobody found it, or THAC0, confusing until 3E said it was : )

I was playing way back in the 70s and found THACO confusing and found that a lot of newbie players had the same issue.

 

[Meatboy]

I was playing way back in the 70s and found THACO confusing and found that a lot of newbie players had the same issue.

I've always had the same problem too until I recently found out about the target 20 variant. (to hit bonus + AC 20+ hits) Still uses descending AC, still thAC0, so much easier to get.

 

[Yora]

isn't first class better than second or third?
I realize some folks didn't grok AC, but never saw anyone struggle with it, or heard of it as counter-intuitive, until 3E.

Because 3rd Edition started in 2000, which was also the time when regular household started getting internet connections. We now see much, much more about what experience other people have with their games.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I've always had the same problem too until I recently found out about the target 20 variant. (to hit bonus + AC 20+ hits) Still uses descending AC, still thAC0, so much easier to get.

Let's say you have Thac0 13 and you roll a 5, then you hit AC 13-5 = 8.
Let's say you have +7 to hit and you roll a 5, then you hit AC 7+5 = 12 (the equivalent of AC 8 with Thac0).

In other words, the difference between Thac0 and to-hit is just that you do a subtraction in one system, and addition in the other. When they changed from Thac0 to to-hit, I really didn't really get the benefit, as I know both subtraction and addition.

 

[interfactor]

Never had a problem with AC, but I do prefer ascending AC now.

I became interested in the OSR when my daughter and a couple of her friends started showing an interest in gaming. It was very easy to get a game started using a rules light system like B/X or labyrinth lord. So I suggest that our kids also play a role in the renewed interest in "old school" gaming.

 

[Minigiant]

The thing with THAC0 was not that it was harder or more confusing. It was more of an eye opener to see how much more sense adding positive bonuses (+1s) was compared to subtracting them. Same with skills (Adding your modifiier to your thief skill) or abstract saving throws mostly seperated from ability score.

Must have been like nations first being introduced to new foods. Bread and cheese is great but this thing called "pizza sauce" is awesome. I wish Johnny would stop putting fish on it though.

Old school D&D had a special feel. And it was easy to modify at home. So if you had a DM with houserules and mods you like, it was awesome. So when the longing for it returned, creating OSR game was easy.

Unfortunately if you played old school D&D and had a DM with houserules you didn't like, it was the absolute worst. By 2000, every DM in my area had their whole set of crazy rules. This is why their are so many OSR products and no OSR King. OS D&D was easy to change but no one agreed on the "fixes". This may be one of the reasons why 3e and 4e are more filled out: uniformity and forced agreement.

 

[Balesir]

Old school D&D had a special feel. And it was easy to modify at home. So if you had a DM with houserules and mods you like, it was awesome. So when the longing for it returned, creating OSR game was easy.

I think this might be a key point. Part of the fun I remember from the earliest D&D was that the rulebooks weren't really a complete system - they were more of a great "starter kit" for a DIY homebrewed system, whether you wrote it down or just carried it in your head. This had some serious downsides, we discovered eventually (mainly that a system made up by the GM and not written down was fairly opaque to the other players), but it had a great allure.

I actually wonder what market there might be for a genuine "toolkit" of simple modules to form a "DIY RPG sourcebook"? Give options for classes or edges or skills, for levels or organic development, for hit points or "wound levels" or separate wounds, for spells gained in slots or cast using "mana points" and so on. All kept simple, with a minimum of "moving parts". Notes on scene framing methods, initiative options, randomisation tools and such like. Hmmm.

 

[delericho]

Let's say you have Thac0 13 and you roll a 5, then you hit AC 13-5 = 8.
Let's say you have +7 to hit and you roll a 5, then you hit AC 7+5 = 12 (the equivalent of AC 8 with Thac0).

In other words, the difference between Thac0 and to-hit is just that you do a subtraction in one system, and addition in the other. When they changed from Thac0 to to-hit, I really didn't really get the benefit, as I know both subtraction and addition.

People are, on average, considerably faster at addition than subtraction. Especially when dealing with a two-digit subtraction, and even more so when the subraction leads to a negative result.

It's also worth noting that in the subraction you're deducting the variable from the fixed value, rather than the other way around, which makes a difference as well. (That is, (13 - roll) is harder than (roll - 13).)

But finally, the calculation in older editions wasn't really THAC0 - roll. It was THAC0 - (roll + modifiers), giving rise to an extra step. Now, it is true that you could (and should) pre-calculate to get a modified THAC0 for each weapon, but that then gave rise to the oddity that a sword +1 meant that you had to subtract 1 from your THAC0. (And, equally, that a shield +1 required you to subtract one from your AC.) And, of course, even doing that didn't remove all the modifiers, as things like weapon vs armour type, or the bonus for attacking from higher ground, would needed added as well.

Whether THAC0 was confusing or not is debateable, and for some people it clearly was not. But the 3e/4e/PF approach of a BAB and ascending Armour Classes is simply better.

(By way of evidence, Delta did a lot of analysis on this in this post, which includes a link to the relevant claims about addition v subtraction.)

 

[Blackbrrd]

People are, on average, considerably faster at addition than subtraction. Especially when dealing with a two-digit subtraction, and even more so when the subraction leads to a negative result.

It's also worth noting that in the subraction you're deducting the variable from the fixed value, rather than the other way around, which makes a difference as well. (That is, (13 - roll) is harder than (roll - 13).)

But finally, the calculation in older editions wasn't really THAC0 - roll. It was THAC0 - (roll + modifiers), giving rise to an extra step. Now, it is true that you could (and should) pre-calculate to get a modified THAC0 for each weapon, but that then gave rise to the oddity that a sword +1 meant that you had to subtract 1 from your THAC0. (And, equally, that a shield +1 required you to subtract one from your AC.) And, of course, even doing that didn't remove all the modifiers, as things like weapon vs armour type, or the bonus for attacking from higher ground, would needed added as well.

Whether THAC0 was confusing or not is debateable, and for some people it clearly was not. But the 3e/4e/PF approach of a BAB and ascending Armour Classes is simply better.

(By way of evidence, Delta did a lot of analysis on this in this post, which includes a link to the relevant claims about addition v subtraction.)

I do agree with you, but I didn't see the benefit at the time, we aren't really disagreeing with you. When it changed, I didn't see the benefit, because I wasn't confused by it.

Regarding the pre-calculation, it's something I would do anyway, it's something I am doing for 3e/4e, I calculate my to-hit number after modifiers (before my turn) and add the roll. It's way faster and in 3e you often had 6-7 extra modifiers (medium to long buff spells). Especially on my high level cleric. Rightous Might, Divine Power, Divine Power, Bless, Haste, Prayer, Greater Magic weapon and a few others. If I had to calculated this on the fly it would seriously have bogged down the game.