OSR OSR ... Feel the Love! Why People Like The Old School

Tony Vargas · Jul 12, 2019

Move along...

lowkey13 · Jul 12, 2019

*Deleted by user*

Sacrosanct · Jul 12, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
The question was why do you like the Old School.

I've been gaming since '80. I'm Old School, I wasn't expelled that I'm aware of.

I gave my reasons why I liked going back and playing an old game.

I'm being called out for it. .

No one is calling you out for the reasons you gave. They are calling you out because you're saying everyone else's reasons are just nostalgia, when they aren't. Not by the definition of what nostalgia is.

lowkey13 · Jul 12, 2019

*Deleted by user*

The Crimson Binome · Jul 12, 2019

Tangential to a couple of points, but I really like how definitive the older games were. Things work the way that they work, and you don't have to pore over minutiae to figure out how to make them work differently, because those options don't exist.

I like that melee attacks are based on your Strength. There's no feat that changes it. You can't just limit yourself to a specific sub-class of weapons in order to get away with using Dexterity instead. If you want to be the best in melee, then that means focusing on Strength. End of story.

Xaelvaen · Jul 12, 2019

lowkey13 said:
If you liked 2e, you should try it again first.

That said, I am probably not the person to ask; while you are correct in stating that 2e is "similar enough" to OSR and B/X and 1e, I am one of the few people that would say that UA (in 1e) and everything 2e is just too ... modern.

If you're looking for stripped down, I'd give B/X a look.

Somewhat recently, I ran a game of 2E at the FLGS when a few of the new-to-D&D players heard myself and another grognard talking about it. I find it still quite enjoyable, for both the nostalgia of a time when I wasn't the DM and my highschool buddy's father was, and for the (contrary to your post) incredibly robust character creation (I admit the blasphemy, I loved the Character Class Point Buy options that came later in the edition).

As for finding anything post UA (1e) and 2e too 'modern', that's cool - we all love what we love. Upon your suggestion, I'll give them a fresh shot - we've been looking for something 'interesting and unusual' for a special gaming event we're doing next month, and that sounds right up our alley. Thank you kindly =)

Xaelvaen · Jul 12, 2019

Ralif Redhammer said:
And, sorry @lowkey13, but one thing I dearly love about the old days is that all paladins had to be Lawful Good.

Man, I cannot like this comment enough. I truly missed the Paladin being strong, and paying for it with both mechanics and role-play hindrances. Still enforce those to this day, regardless of the system. My players are basically the same mindset - last time I had a Paladin in game that -didn't- tithe his treasure was a one-shot in an FLGS.

Sacrosanct · Jul 12, 2019

Stormonu said:
In my opinion, 5E itself is a retroclone .

I wouldn't call 5e a retroclone because it has too many elements from recent editions, but it certainly brought back some of the reasons given upthread that can emulate OSR games pretty well if you want. For example, two things were fast chargen and statblocks in modules.

here is a 5e PC of mine, and a screen shot of a 5e adventure I had written. These are two aspects of OSR that I really prefer over modern editions (easy and brief character sheets and stat blocks inside the encounter description as opposed to looking up the monster in the MM every time).

Ralif Redhammer · Jul 12, 2019

Same. All my paladins have been LG, and try to live up to that code. They have never been the execute-the-party-thief, stick-up-the-butt kinds that give paladins a bad name. No, I figure a proper LG paladin is more like the MCU Captain America or Christopher Reeve-era Superman.

Xaelvaen said:
Man, I cannot like this comment enough. I truly missed the Paladin being strong, and paying for it with both mechanics and role-play hindrances. Still enforce those to this day, regardless of the system. My players are basically the same mindset - last time I had a Paladin in game that -didn't- tithe his treasure was a one-shot in an FLGS.

reelo · Jul 12, 2019

lowkey13 said:
So ...

based on another thread, I had to ask myself, "Self, why do people go back and play OSR, retroclones, B/X, and 1e? I mean, given the sheer number of posts stating that these rules are objectively trash, people would have to be crazy AND stupid to play them, right?"

Well, unfortunately, I am both crazy and stupid, loving both 1e and B/X, and having recently started a 1e campaign for teens and beginning to dabble in a B/X campaign. So I thought I'd start a new thread and explore some of the reasons why I love the old school rules and movement, and perhaps get some feedback from others hopefully without ... well, extraneous clutter.

So let's start with my non-exhaustive, non-ordered list of why I went back to playing these rules (I still play 5e as well):

1. Chargen. I understand that there are many people who enjoy chargen as its own mini-game. That love to plot out their characters and their choices from level 1 to 20. That enjoy the session 0 / day of creating the characters as much, if not more, than the adventuring. That can't wait for every new ability you get with each level.

I am not that person. I mean, sure, it was fun for a little while. But you know what's even more fun? Creating a character in under 3 minutes. Not worrying about leveling a character. That's fun- more time playing, less time working on the character.

2. Magic Items. So I'm using this as a synecdoche for the idea that the character changes through play more than design (which touches into (1), above). The character isn't defined by creation, or by abilities, really, but by what happens to them through play. Another way of putting this is that I enjoy the serendipity; of discovering the character through play, of changing course as I get what might be a character-defining magic item (as magic items are very much defining in the early editions).

I also really, really like the magic items, and the sheer variety and use of them.

3. Rules, lack thereof. 1e might not be the best example of this in terms of RAW, but B/X and 1e in terms of RAI (very much a DIY ethos) are. The way I look at 1e, in fact, is that the hodgepodge of rules presented outside of the most basic rules is Gygax basically saying, "Hey, I encountered this, and this is how I houseruled it. See if it works for you." Of course, I'm basically running 1e classes in an almost B/X framework, so there's that ...

4. Class Niche Protection. This seems like a small thing, but it isn't to me. 5e tries to straddle the line between having classes (like traditional D&D) and having the classes not really matter (by having archetypes that bleed into each other, easy MC'ing, and feats), so you can end up with multiple ways to "build" the same concept. Now, I admit that the class concept in the old days could get pretty ridiculous (you want a new concept? well, you better hope Dragon Magazine has a class for that!), but I appreciate having strict lines of demarcation between my classes, not a bunch of adventurers that kinda sorta fight and kinda sorta cast spells, which leads me to ...

5. Spells. Ugh. This is my single ... biggest ... pet peeve with 5e. TOO. MUCH. MAGIC. It's takes a lot of work to design a character that DOESN'T somehow stumble into spellcasting ability. Not to mention, with at-will cantrips for attacks, I can't remember the last time there was a combat round without spellcasting.

No thank you. I like spells to be less common, and more spectacular. Don't give me pew pew pew. Give me the occasional BOOM.

6. Big Bad / Combats / Whack-a-mole. As a general rule, I like combats to be quick and dangerous. I hate (HATE) big bags of hit points; this is supposed to be fun, not slowly working an actuarial table. I want adventurers to worry about their fates (and thus avoid combats), not keep getting knocked down to zero and pop back up. I want a single monster to be a concern for the party- not just a quick casualty to the Avengers.

7. Leveling, Man. This might be an idiosyncratic one, but I really like how when you level up, you just generally get better (attacks, saving throws). I do not like needing to be proficient, or increasing your stats. A great fighter doesn't need to be either Hercules or have the Dexterity of a Cirque du Soleil performer to get much better with experience.

8. Stats. Hey- you know what? I don't much like ASIs, either. I don't want to do the whole tired realism/game debate, because who cares? But I prefer having stats be relatively fixed, as they tend to be in real life, with possible increases due to magic. It also allows for less importance to be placed on stats, which means ...
9. Roll for stats, not point buy. Yeah, I know you can roll for stats in 5e. But with ASIs and the much stronger importance of stats to the character's advancement (saves, to hit, etc.) I use point buy.

10. Monsters and modules. A little esoteric, here, but I love to be able to see a monster with, like, one line. No need to know what the monster's abilities are- just their HD, AC, HP, attacks.

That's a quick run down. I was thinking about this, but basically, I appreciate having a quick, stripped-down style of play. I still really like 5e- I mostly run it in an OSR fashion, using 1e modules, but there are a few things I just can't replicate.

So, what do y'all think?

Damn, those are *exactly* the same reasons as mine. Especially concerning the plotting out of characters (I despise the concept of "builds") and the serendipity of discovering the fate of the character through gameplay.
I also don't like the stretching of class abilities over the course of levels. Front-load the classes, and have them "just" get better at levelup. It removes the grind somewhat.

I find myself mostly gravitating to OSE for BX, and AS&SH for 1E (and, of course, for its fantastic humanocentric setting)