The "Old School Revival" - The Light Bulb Goes On

[innerdude]

I have to admit, for a long time, I have never understood the "OSR" movement.

Why would anyone willingly choose to back to an earlier edition of D&D (or any other game, for that matter) when the more "modern" versions seemed so much better?

To give some perspective, I started on BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia, and played for a few short years as a teen, but never caught on to AD&D 1 or 2, then left the hobby for about ten years.

When I came back to the hobby in 2001, D&D 3 was in full swing, and good friend of mine at work got me into it again.

It took a little bit of "transition" to get used to the rule changes, but it quickly became apparent to me (at the time) that 3.0 was a "better" game than BECMI ever was--no arbitrary class/race rules, more customization, consistent rules, etc. As a player, I flat out LOVED the 3.x rules.

So when I started hanging out in more of the RPG community sites, I was surprised when people would talk about going "back" to 2e, or that their 25 year 2e campaign had simply never ended.

And then it happened: This year, after 20+ years in the hobby, I started actually GMing.

I've always thought I could be a pretty good GM; I tried a few one-shots in the past with varying results (some good, some bad). I had to learn not to railroad, and it took a little bit of work to find the balance between preparation and flexibility, but I've always had a knack with creating interesting characters and story (I'm a professional writer by trade, and have done college-level and semi-professional theater), and right now my current Pathfinder group seems to be having a very good-to-great time.

But—It's become totally, brutally apparent to me now, having GM'd for six months, just how "heavy" the Pathfinder / 3.x rules really are.

There's rules.....for EV-ERY-DAMN-THING. I'm a working professional with a wife and a 2-year-old daughter, so needless to say I like my GM prep load to be "light." But I'm noticing that players who have high levels of 3.x rules mastery inevitably question GM hand-waving because they've had it ingrained into their minds that "D&D 3.x has an explanation for everything."

Even if it's not explicitly stated, my two biggest "rules crunch" players think that almost anything can be correlated tangentially to some other rule "that makes sense." It's created this mindset that nothing can be GM fiat, because it's somehow "not fair," or makes their character less effective than it should be.

Plus, even though our party is only fifth level, I can't imagine trying to GM this beast past level 12 (or maybe 14 at MAX). What a nightmare of rules, buffs, spells, resistances, plusses and minuses......and of course you can't "handwave" any of it, because the 3.x rules create the mind set that it shouldn't be handwaved.

Does this mean I don't still love Pathfinder? No, not at all, it just means that I think I have underestimated just how important it is to have a group that agrees on the basic premise that the rules are guidelines, not canon. My players are what I'd call "moderate" rules lawyers, but I'd NEVER play or GM 3.x with someone who went any farther. I'd go bat-crap crazy.

I still don't agree with most of 4e's design decisions, but I can now appreciate a little bit more the desire to simplify the baseline mechanics by stripping out some of the base saving rolls for static numbers, making everything a static 1/2 level increment, etc. It really makes me want Paizo to create a Pathfinder 2 that goes much further in streamlining the rules without having to maintain backwards 3.5 compatibility.

And forgive me, Old School Revivalists, for not understanding your desire to go back to rules systems that allow for a little more leeway in adjudication.

 

[JeffB]

Precisely my issues with 3E/PF and 4E to a lesser extent. Games shouldn't involve alot of work, AFAIC

 

[Diamond Cross]

~ Discussion isn't edition warring, and your drive-by threadcrap isn't appreciated. Please don't do it again ~ Plane Sailing, Admin

 

[Sunseeker]

Rules lawyers are a boon and a bane. Instead of having them work against your "from the hip" GMing, make them work for you. If they believe that there is a rule in existance that can suitably work for what you're doing, make them go find it. Otherwise exercise the fact that this not a democracy and say "It is so because I say it is so."

If they cannot work with that, then alas, for it is their loss. I prefer a more "from the hip" gaming, because really, it's quicker and more fun. that said, I think this can be achieved in 3.x and 4e by simply having a grasp of the concept of the gameworld rules, and working in something similar of your own make.

 

[Plane Sailing]

because the 3.x rules create the mind set that it shouldn't be handwaved.

It's funny, because in many ways 3e was more pro- DM customisation than any other edition ever! Somehow that got lost in the public perception though...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And forgive me, Old School Revivalists, for not understanding your desire to go back to rules systems that allow for a little more leeway in adjudication.

I can't call my self a Revivalist, honestly, since I never really stopped playing 3.X. And while I can enjoy playing in a game of 4Ed and can call it well designed, I don't like it enough to ever run it as a GM. Furthermore, there are enough things I did like about previous editions that if our current group decided to play a 2Ed or 1Ed game, I'd be there in a heartbeat.

In short, its a simple matter of preference. Some people don't like the new games, so they go back to the games they like. Accepting this is no different than accepting that some people prefer Earthdawn, Harn or Talisantha to D&D.

 

[prosfilaes]

It really makes me want Paizo to create a Pathfinder 2 that goes much further in streamlining the rules without having to maintain backwards 3.5 compatibility.

Well, Pathfinder is considerably more ornate then D&D 3.5 in many ways. I'm not sure that's the direction they're looking to take the game.

And forgive me, Old School Revivalists, for not understanding your desire to go back to rules systems that allow for a little more leeway in adjudication.

I understand the desire for simpler rulesystems; what I've never understood is why you'd want to go back to a rulesystem with THAC0 and experience by class and all the other unfun complexities the old systems had. I'm still looking for a system that's recognizably D&D and cuts out the complexities of both 1e/2e and 3e. True20 doesn't do it for me; I want dwarves, halflings and gnomes playing fighters, clerics, wizards and thieves.

 

[aboyd]

Why not play BFRPG? Basic Fantasy? Old style D&D with d20 mechanic and race/class separated.

For me, I've found that I really love 3.5 edition D&D, but also, I took the idea of E6, and made my game an "E14" game. That is, 14th level is the max. After that, you get a new feat each time you should level up.

Mostly, I did this because I very much wanted to avoid 8th & 9th level spells. That's really the only part of the game that was too much for me. I was never good at adjudicting a Wish spell, or closing up the loopholes from a Gate, etc. However, I also didn't want to have to go through and remove every magic item that depended upon those spells, so I said simply that demigods can cast 8th, and gods can cast 9th, and thus such magic items exist but are extremely rare.

Stopping at 14th also had a nice side effect -- just due to how the tables work, the monk class is the only class that gets 4 attacks per round. Everyone else needed at least 1 more level before unlocking 4 attacks per round. So one of the most MAD, lame classes in the game came out with a tiny advantage thanks to my cutoff.

Anyway, I do feel for those that have a hard time with the rules-glut of 3rd edition. If you won't houserule it, next best thing is to revert to a simpler system that doesn't bog you down. I think that's a great solution.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I definitely can appreciate the lightness of older edition rule sets, and only recently re-discovered that appreciation! I haven't yet been fortunate enough to run one recently, but I'm slowly planning out a B/X-style campaign. So I haven't yet really grokked the difference in prep-times, but I know it's gonna be mindblowing when I finally get the chance!

That said, at least at this point, I know I'm more comfortable at handwaving in 3e because of its rules-heavy nature. Having all those rules means having lots of models available as guidance. When an on-the-fly adjudication is needed, it's usually fairly straightforward to give it a form similar to another tangentially related rule and yet be reasonably confident it'll function ok within the game at that time. Also, the huge rule set means that I can usually track down an official ruling after the session and retrofit if/as needed.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

I'm in the middle of a pathfinder/3.5 purge for this exact reason. The rules are just too heavy and it's a drag to keep up/argue about them all the time. Although, 4E to me is getting the exact same way with the number of books and rules being tacked on. I know you're encouraged to ignore all rules you don't like but I can't see that as a viable option long term. Eventually, one or more of my players in either group will want to bring in something new or argue a specific rule to gain an advantage.

In reaction we start our homeruled RC campaign soon, players capped at lvl 10 with no traditional demi-humans. All I can say is the prep and playtest have been a godsend and just what we've all been looking for.