OSR What Has Caused the OSR Revival?

[Dunnagin]

Well you can't think of previous editions as "lesser" editions because they aren't supported any more. I view them as just different editions, unless the edition that came after was intended to correct the mistakes from the previous one, take 3.5 for example. 3.5 was not a new edition, it was just a reprint containing all the errata. There is an excerpt in the PHB that says this.

Many previous editions are currently being supported though, thanks to the OSR movement (new modules are being produced, for example).

Also, I think "errata" is a bit of loaded word... most of the changes made in new editions actually change the way the game plays, length of character generation, complexity, etc.

These changes are "preferences", not necessarily "corrected mistakes".

One might say that Ascending Armor Class "fixed an error", while others thinks Descending AC works just fine.

Was the lack of Feats and Prestige Classes in earlier editions an "Error", or was their addition to the rules set a "Preference"?

The truth is, the older editions worked just fine. They are easier to play and teach, it's easier to generate characters, easy to houserule, actual game play is fun (as time has born out), etc.

I think the idea that 3.0 or later editions were actually just "errata" is possibly just "marketing speak".

EDIT: I totally misread your post... I thought you were saying that 3.5 was considered to be corrected "Errata" of Earlier Editions... I see now that you meant 3.5 was Errata of 3.0.

My mistake... we actually agree

 

[MJS]

One might say that Ascending Armor Class "fixed an error", while others thinks Descending AC works just fine.

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

 

[Dunnagin]

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

Yup, I think that is huge.

If something actually makes the game simpler (but doesn't mess up a bunch of other aspects of the game), then you have a kind of "technological improvement".

I wish newer versions of the game had more of these types of improvements, as opposed to brand new (more complex) components.

 

[Minigiant]

To understand the reason for the OSR, you must also understand why the new school was created:

Playstyles and Settings

Basically the old-school D&D games were easy for the DM to tailor. This allow for them to create many different worlds to plays and methods to play in them. But there were limitations and preferences ingrained in the system which made some styles and settings harder than other. So the newer versions of D&D started to cater to these hindered styles and settings. Unfortunately they catered to old-school styles less and the cycle restarts.

Think of it like sports.

Imagine if you were the fans of a team with excellent defense but offense and scoring was just average at best. Like a football team with great linebackers and d backs but the quarterback was average and the OLine was snaky. So a few fans would say "Hey. If we had a great QB and a decent running game... Superbowl." And the owner hears and tells the GM to draft and trade for offense year after year. But you excellent defense gets old or injured as your offense improves. Now you have a high scoring team with no defense. "Remember when we were a defensive team." says a fan.

 

[Yora]

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

I did! I played AD&D for half a year before 3rd Edition was released, and I still don't understand it.

 

[MoonSong]

I did! I played AD&D for half a year before 3rd Edition was released, and I still don't understand it.

SImilar case here, just funnier, I fully got it after playing 3e.
I'm a curious case, I actually learned playing with 3.x, and I have houseruled the heck out of 3.5, and enjoy it, but to me the "one true D&D" is 2e, I will gladly go out of the way to play in one of those games they always feel special in a way no other game does.

 

[Minigiant]

Also one of the reasons why you see many OSR games is that the older style games had simple mechanics with large gaps in the mechanics for DMs to easily tinker with. It was easy to correct stuff you didn't like. You could shift this to there. Make that apply to everyone with a penalty.

I played AD&D with 4 different thief tables. And I was only a thief in half of those groups.

Of course if you hated the DM's new idea...

 

[MJS]

I did! I played AD&D for half a year before 3rd Edition was released, and I still don't understand it.

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. Some of that had to have been marketing.
When I DM now, I use descending AC, but throw out the ascending numbers also. What I find var more interesting is armor type, and giving weapons designed to defeat plate and chain some bonus.

 

[Agamon]

Nostalgia may be a good hook, but Actual Play decides the product lifespan I think.

Bingo. Nostalgia (if you originally played it back in the day) or curiosity (if you didn't but want to see what the buzz is about) is a good hook, but the myriad other reasons are why one sticks with it.

Nostalgia is why I can't resist getting old video games like Balder's Gate, FarCry, Thief and Heroes of Might and Magic. But they never have staying power with me because they really show their age, in both gameplay and graphically. Not so with old school D&D. 20 sessions into my ACKS game and the group is having a lot of fun.

 

[chaochou]

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.