OSR What Has Caused the OSR Revival?

[Dunnagin]

I think one of the big things that has stimulated the OSR movement is that 3e and 4e both lack a true basic version of the game, an oversight that DDN seems to be correcting.

I can give you my personal experience with each edition (I was the DM most of the time).

My group started with AD&D (1E, whatever you wish to call it).
We dropped several rules (such as Weapon Speed Factor) and ended up playing something closed to Basic (BX sort of), but without Race as Class.

When 2E came out, it added options (Weapon & Non Weapon Proficiencies). We adopted Weapon proficiencies (everyone liked a little extra damage), and Non Weapon Proficiencies really didn’t change the game much (being a Blacksmith or able to Weave Baskets really didn’t impact the game play much, just added flavor).

In essence, at this point, we were still not playing anything much more complex than Basic still. There were a few more options, and a bunch of overpowered stuff added by the “Handbook” splats… but most things could be mitigated, and were optional.

In college, I had less time to DM, so we moved to the Rules Cyclopedia. Race as Class was an odd thing at first, but could be easily house-ruled away. The Weapon Skill charts added some fiddly stuff, but it was mainly on the player side, so not a big deal. I liked the idea of the entire system being held in one book.

3.0 was really a “game changer”. Instead of more optional “add ons”, which is what had happened so far, all of the changes were now “hard coded” into the game. You couldn’t really “house-rule away” Feats, Feat Chains or Prestige Classes. The system also added more complexity to Monster Stat Blocks and a lot of other, very granular, rules that made the game harder to DM (but it was delightful for players, who now had a million options).

Pathfinder changed some things for those who were invested in 3.0/3.5, but for those who wanted the system to “step back” and be more streamlined, nothing really was addressed. They simply tweaked a few minor “bugs” for those who were already invested in the system.

4E tried to correct the “mistakes” made by 3.0/3.5, and focused on making the game easier to play and much easier to DM. They did this by (in my opinion) “re-booting” the system from scratch. Those of us who started out playing AD&D were like PC Users who had suddenly switched to MAC OS. Nothing was where we thought it would be, the system worked differently… and from our perspective, it defied logic (based on previous experience mind you).

It was the design of 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder and 4E where they “lost me as a DM”.

I went back to DMing older editions.

I think my sweet spot would be an updated Basic, with some actual options (not hard coded changes)… and perhaps a few updates (such as Ascending AC).

That was my “road”.

As to your point: I think lowering complexity for the DM is crucial... giving Player Character's a ton of options is probably ok, as long as it doesn't "bloat" the system.

 

[Zardnaar]

I can give you my personal experience with each edition (I was the DM most of the time).

My group started with AD&D (1E, whatever you wish to call it).
We dropped several rules (such as Weapon Speed Factor) and ended up playing something closed to Basic (BX sort of), but without Race as Class.

When 2E came out, it added options (Weapon & Non Weapon Proficiencies). We adopted Weapon proficiencies (everyone liked a little extra damage), and Non Weapon Proficiencies really didn’t change the game much (being a Blacksmith or able to Weave Baskets really didn’t impact the game play much, just added flavor).

In essence, at this point, we were still not playing anything much more complex than Basic still. There were a few more options, and a bunch of overpowered stuff added by the “Handbook” splats… but most things could be mitigated, and were optional.

In college, I had less time to DM, so we moved to the Rules Cyclopedia. Race as Class was an odd thing at first, but could be easily house-ruled away. The Weapon Skill charts added some fiddly stuff, but it was mainly on the player side, so not a big deal. I liked the idea of the entire system being held in one book.

3.0 was really a “game changer”. Instead of more optional “add ons”, which is what had happened so far, all of the changes were now “hard coded” into the game. You couldn’t really “house-rule away” Feats, Feat Chains or Prestige Classes. The system also added more complexity to Monster Stat Blocks and a lot of other, very granular, rules that made the game harder to DM (but it was delightful for players, who now had a million options).

Pathfinder changed some things for those who were invested in 3.0/3.5, but for those who wanted the system to “step back” and be more streamlined, nothing really was addressed. They simply tweaked a few minor “bugs” for those who were already invested in the system.

4E tried to correct the “mistakes” made by 3.0/3.5, and focused on making the game easier to play and much easier to DM. They did this by (in my opinion) “re-booting” the system from scratch. Those of us who started out playing AD&D were like PC Users who had suddenly switched to MAC OS. Nothing was where we thought it would be, the system worked differently… and from our perspective, it defied logic (based on previous experience mind you).

It was the design of 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder and 4E where they “lost me as a DM”.

I went back to DMing older editions.

I think my sweet spot would be an updated Basic, with some actual options (not hard coded changes)… and perhaps a few updates (such as Ascending AC).

That was my “road”.

As to your point: I think lowering complexity for the DM is crucial... giving Player Character's a ton of options is probably ok, as long as it doesn't "bloat" the system.

Check out Adventurer Conqueror King. B/X with some basic options.
http://www.rpgnow.com/product/99123/Adventurer-Conqueror-King-System

 

[Libramarian]

Old D&D is more complicated in some ways and less complicated in others. It tends to be more complicated in areas where it doesn't bother me and I think most people overstate its impact (descending AC, using different dice for different mechanics), and less complicated in areas where it does (DM prep, the amount of breadth in the fantasy genre the game purports to cover).

Basically, I like old D&D because it's a great dungeon fantasy game. I don't have any desire to use D&D for a very different type of fantasy game. I'd rather use a new game with no vestigial features left over from its original purpose to deal with.

I recognize that many people never saw D&D as a dungeon fantasy game and therefore see its evolution through the editions as a gradual (I imagine frustratingly slow) progression to a more generic epic fantasy game.

BtW the best way to use THAC0 and descending AC is this: an attack roll is a hit if the result is between 1 and AC, or between THAC0 and 20. (Of course this will be even more frustrating to those who hate the fact that old D&D has some roll-low mechanics and some roll-high. It's both!)

 

[howandwhy99]

Using the lingo of today, early D&D AC and To Hit scores were bounded. They existed on a finite 20 number line for the linear d20 roll, but these actually represented a curvilinear relationship atop the linear one on the die.

Negative AC and zero AC are only reached as penalties to the To Hit roll, not modifiers to a target number. The relationship between 1 and 2 is a curve that never actually reaches one. It extends infinitely. The results between 2 and 3 are differently curved, And 3 and 4. And so on, with each span being unique.

2e's THAC0 rolls above 20 receive the same treatment, magical attack bonuses affect AC not the To Hit roll. The hit / target relationship never reaches from 19 to 20 either. The relationship extends infinitely, a parabola bounded at 1 and 20.

Armor Class is a little confusing because it begins at 9 and descends numerically to represent increasing difficulty classes on down to 2 (and potentially beyond for extraordinarily difficult armors, those requiring a second roll). Armor Class is a general class derived by many things. A portion may be from the armor's Dex, some from the armor's Str.

Also, Standard Armor Class is 9 for humans, but that includes average Dex. Hitting a relative stationary target isn't how the game's combat system is balanced at 50%. It's hitting a defending opponent that sets the basis for an average challenge.

The whole system isn't designed for infinite scaling like d20. It's designed for greatest simplicity and ease of use for the span of class levels supported by the game. High class levels, ones where HD and To Hit modifiers stop increasing (on the first roll at least), are not supported as simply. However, all class levels can play with all other class levels the whole breadth of the game. All monsters, traps, challenges in general can overcome with die rolls, by luck alone. Though it's definitely not in your best interest or the design intent of the game to lunge in head first and hack and slash, die roll toss, even in a relatively balanced encounter.

 

[Dunnagin]

I may be confused by some of your wording here, could you clarify your meanings?

Using the lingo of today, early D&D AC and To Hit scores were bounded. They existed on a finite 20 number line for the linear d20 roll, but these actually represented a curvilinear relationship atop the linear one on the die.

According to page 74 of the AD&D DMG, a Zero Level Fighter needs a 26 to hit AC:-10 and a 17th Level Fighter needs a -6 to hit AC:10. I don't think this qualifies as a "finite 20 number line", in fact the span is described is 32 possible numbers... several of which are "auto misses" or "auto hits".

Negative AC and zero AC are only reached as penalties to the To Hit roll, not modifiers to a target number. The relationship between 1 and 2 is a curve that never actually reaches one. It extends infinitely. The results between 2 and 3 are differently curved, And 3 and 4. And so on, with each span being unique.

In order to hit an Negative AC at lower levels, you'd need a Bonus, not a "Penalty"... or am I reading this wrong? I have no idea what you means by "curve" here... and "never actually reches one" seems off, since a 13th Level Fighter needs a "1" to hit AC:7, for example.

Orcus, for example, has an AC of -6. This AC is not "reached as a penalty to the To Hit roll"... it is the AC of the creature. A low level character will probably require a roll Greater Than 20 to hit this creature.

2e's THAC0 rolls above 20 receive the same treatment, magical attack bonuses affect AC not the To Hit roll. The hit / target relationship never reaches from 19 to 20 either. The relationship extends infinitely, a parabola bounded at 1 and 20.

I do believe some "to hit" numbers in 2E do in fact extend higher than 20... I may be wrong (I don't have my books in front of me). AD&D 1st Edition definitely has target to hit numbers that are above 20.

Armor Class is a little confusing because it begins at 9 and descends numerically to represent increasing difficulty classes on down to 2 (and potentially beyond for extraordinarily difficult armors, those requiring a second roll). Armor Class is a general class derived by many things. A portion may be from the armor's Dex, some from the armor's Str.

Again, on page 74 of the AD&D DMG, Armor Class actually begins at (10) and extends down to (-10). I have no idea what you mean by "second roll"... do you give an extra attack roll when an opponent has a very low AC? Also, what do you mean when you say Armor has "Dex" and "Str"... A "character" with a high Dex might have an AC modifier, but Str has never entered the picture as far as I know... and Armor itself has no Dex or Str attributes.

Also, Standard Armor Class is 9 for humans, but that includes average Dex. Hitting a relative stationary target isn't how the game's combat system is balanced at 50%. It's hitting a defending opponent that sets the basis for an average challenge.

Not sure what you mean here. Is a peasant with AC:9 not "defending" themselves?

The whole system isn't designed for infinite scaling like d20. It's designed for greatest simplicity and ease of use for the span of class levels supported by the game. High class levels, ones where HD and To Hit modifiers stop increasing (on the first roll at least), are not supported as simply. However, all class levels can play with all other class levels the whole breadth of the game. All monsters, traps, challenges in general can overcome with die rolls, by luck alone. Though it's definitely not in your best interest or the design intent of the game to lunge in head first and hack and slash, die roll toss, even in a relatively balanced encounter.

Again, I don't see "infinite scaling". There is a set 32 number range. Some AC "to hit" numbers are unattainable at lower levels... some are automatic successes at higher levels.

I'm not trying to be abrasive here, honestly... it's just that some of your terminology and references seemed flawed. I played AD&D for many years, and it worked perfectly fine... but you seem to be attributing some "perfections" to it, that the system actually didn't have.

Could you clarify?

 

[howandwhy99]

I may be confused by some of your wording here, could you clarify your meanings?

Early D&D isn't necessarily AD&D. AD&D tried to break the its own rules often enough and included many flawed systems. I'm talking about the relationships of Armor Class and To Hit ability, ACs lower than two, rolls higher than 19, as well as how AC is derived for armor and then how the whole work together. 2e had even more flaws by trying to simplify the system.

I'm not trying to be abrasive here, honestly... it's just that some of your terminology and references seemed flawed. I played AD&D for many years, and it worked perfectly fine... but you seem to be attributing some "perfections" to it, that the system actually didn't have.

Could you clarify?

Based off of just reading the DMG and not looking at the whole, attempting to balance the whole based upon other works, then I can see how AD&D can look like a linear spread greater than 20. This portion of the combat engine is lost, if it is inverted. It's not a "perfect" mechanical relationship, but it certainly isn't d20 upside-down either.

 

[Dunnagin]

Early D&D isn't necessarily AD&D. AD&D tried to break the its own rules often enough and included many flawed systems. I'm talking about the relationships of Armor Class and To Hit ability, ACs lower than two, rolls higher than 19, as well as how AC is derived for armor and then how the whole work together. 2e had even more flaws by trying to simplify the system.

Based off of just reading the DMG and not looking at the whole, attempting to balance the whole based upon other works, then I can see how AD&D can look like a linear spread greater than 20. This portion of the combat engine is lost, if it is inverted. It's not a "perfect" mechanical relationship, but it certainly isn't d20 upside-down either.

I getcha.

Thanks for clarifying!

 

[MJS]

Subtract AC from THAC0.
done.

 

[DMKastmaria]

In OSR threads, folks (Perhaps not you, EW) often treat the mention of nostalgia as if it is some dirty word or something that must be excised from the discussion. For a hobby entertainment game, nostalgia is JUST AS GOOD a reason as any other, and should be embraced with all the other reasons!

When awareness of the OSR first hit the wider gaming community, a lot of 3.x and 4e gamers played the "nostalgia card" as a way of dismissing and belittling old school play. So, yeah, that's one reason some people don't like it.

Also, gamers like myself, who've been playing TSR era D&D for 30+ years, don't consider it a factor. It's kinda like saying a Pathfinder player is just nostalgic for 3.x.

It will be just like saying that, come 2030.

 

[Zardnaar]

I never really got hostility towards older D&D from the 3rd ed players. It kind of spread via the 4vengers on the WoTC site though who generally belittled every other version of D&D that was not 4E. Back in 2001 on the WoTC forums 3rd ed was the new thing but I do not recal a large amount of negativity towards AD&D/BECMI.