OSR What Has Caused the OSR Revival?

[ExploderWizard]

Old Geezer was right. There really are people who cannot take a dump unassisted.

 

[Shasarak]

How so? 1E is a bit needlessly complex. I prefer Moldvay basic for OSR gaming but I don't see how 1E disempowers creativity. If anything, OSR systems empower creativity by having fewer cut & dried options. AD&D as written is a bit too fiddly for my tastes though.

Personally I have found DMs coming up with rulings off the top of their head to be pretty hit or miss, mostly because people are really bad at determining probability under pressure.

I mean take an example of the DM allowing someone to do a whirlwind attack to try and hit three enemies at once with a -5 penalty to their attack. It might seem a reasonable call on the face of it, but in reality it either turns out to be so ridiculously difficult to hit that you are better off just making a normal attack or so ridiculously good that you always want to try to whirlwind attack as much as you can.

 

[Shasarak]

Old Geezer was right. There really are people who cannot take a dump unassisted.

Ironically that would be the people most likely to be called "Old Geezer".

 

[Zak S]

Personally I have found DMs coming up with rulings off the top of their head to be pretty hit or miss, mostly because people are really bad at determining probability under pressure.

I mean take an example of the DM allowing someone to do a whirlwind attack to try and hit three enemies at once with a -5 penalty to their attack. It might seem a reasonable call on the face of it, but in reality it either turns out to be so ridiculously difficult to hit that you are better off just making a normal attack or so ridiculously good that you always want to try to whirlwind attack as much as you can.

A good GM either:

1. Would do it right (and you'd know because play afterwards would bear it out) or

2. Would go "let me get back to you on a mechanic for that", for now you can't or

3. Would go "Doing the math on that is too complicated right now"

That's a good DM. The one who immediately does it and it's ridiculously over- or under- powered? That's a bad dm.

 

[Shasarak]

A good GM either:

1. Would do it right (and you'd know because play afterwards would bear it out) or

I would imagine that doing it right just means coming up with an answer that the player also thinks is reasonable in the moment

2. Would go "let me get back to you on a mechanic for that", for now you can't or

3. Would go "Doing the math on that is too complicated right now"

Which essentially means if it does not have a rule then you can not do it, exactly what Celebrim was suggesting.

That's a good DM. The one who immediately does it and it's ridiculously over- or under- powered? That's a bad dm.

Thats my point. It is not a bad DM, it is just a DM who can not calculate probabilities under pressure. Which is just a normal DM using rules that expects the DM to be making rulings.

 

[Zak S]

I would imagine that doing it right just means coming up with an answer that the player also thinks is reasonable in the moment

Either the player trusts the DM or does not.

If they do not then they should not be playing together.

. It is not a bad DM, it is just a DM who can not calculate probabilities under pressure. Which is just a normal DM using rules that expects the DM to be making rulings

To me, playing with a DM like that--who would immediately assign a probability and it didn't work--
would be playing with a bad DM. Or, at least, a DM who has made a mistake.

If that was the norm: that's like trying to play without dice. It voids the warranty. You have to be better than that or you can't roll.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

OSR: Re: "The Nostalgia Defense". I generally just dismiss this defense/excuse/reason. The main reason is that I still DM 1e/HM campaigns; just started one a month ago, session 4 is Sunday. All four of my players aren't "old school" in that they learned either at the very tail end of 2e or beginning of 3e (actually, one did start with 1e...but that was only because my bro was running it, during the end of 2e). They all prefer 1e/HM over 3e/PF/5e. Can't be nostalgia talking because they don't have any. Besides, I personally prefer 1e/HM over any other version of AD&D (including 3e+ in there). And, as I've never stopped playing 1e...it can't really be "nostalgic", can it?

"Yes you can" or "No you can't": I am absolutely fascinated that some people could have been playing as long as me (almost 40 years now, since '80), started with B/X and 1e...and have VASTLY different expectations and thoughts on those systems! Extraordinary...! In my game, since day one waaaaay back when the 1e DMG wasn't even out yet... I read 1e as "If there isn't a rule, make it up! If a player wants to have his PC try something...have him/her roll a Save or roll a d20 and equal/under a stat. Keep the game going!". The idea was that, over time, a DM's skill at adjudicating situations would get better and better. A superior DM would know what "works and doesn't work" and develop his/her own methods for running their Campaign. Back in those days, yeah, DM's had "their own Campaigns"; usually their own worlds, but also their own 'take' on City State, Greyhawk, Tekumel (sp?), etc. I *loved* hearing about how other DM's created this or that, or how they handled some particular rule, spell, or monster, etc. There was variety in DM'ing "style and capability". IMNSHO, much more than in today's "modern RPG expectations of DM'ing"...but that probably IS nostalgia talking! ...maybe...

The fact that there even was/is an OSR Revival proves one thing; people like variety. I enjoy 1e/HM...and I enjoy 5e D&D...and I enjoy many other game systems. I am one of those who firmly believe that yes, a systems mechanics do affect the feel of a game. Often as much or more than what the DM interjects into it!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Morrus]

Even if it was just about nostalgia (which it’s not), that would be OK. There’s nothing wrong with nostalgia.

 

[Zak S]

Even if it was just about nostalgia (which it’s not), that would be OK. There’s nothing wrong with nostalgia.

True but after however many years watching this debate on the internet, I think everyone knows the second half of that argument is always "And that's why people like it, definitely not because the new content is good or the old mechanics are often suited to their purpose"

I mean: it's 2018, people who make the "nostalgia" claim have been doing this same thing and having this same conversation and avoiding the same questions for almost a decade now no matter how many units sell, no matter how many awards OSR people get, no matter how many young gamers get into the OSR (after having tried other things) no matter how much familiarity the OSR fans demonstrate with new material they prefer not to play, no matter how many well-known professional game designers go "True: they have a point".

It's more than a pattern, it's literally the way this always goes. Every. Single. Time.

After all the years of professional and nonprofessional OSR stuff, it still takes more fingers to type this than I need to count the number of people who have actually played OSR games who say they did it out of nostalgia.

 

[Zardnaar]

I ent OSR due to burn out not nostalgia. I enjoyed it because of nostalgia perhaps early on it brought back memories.

Current players only 1 played AD&D back in the day so 3/5 have no nostalgia reason to like it. Last adventure we played was X8 Drums of Fire Mountain.