OSR Is there room in modern gaming for the OSR to bring in new gamers?

[Fanaelialae]

I think that the OSR certainly still brings in new blood.

I doubt it will reach the same popularity as 5e though, and for the why I think we can look at the history of video games.

In the early days, many video games were quite hard. There were serious constraints on what programmers could do with the hardware at the time, so setting the difficulty high padded the game and gave it replay value.

Nowadays, hard games are arguably less mainstream. However, that doesn't mean that hard games are a dying breed. Demon/Dark Souls spawned an entire line of hard games that enjoy significant popularity, though probably less than that of something like Super Mario Bros. There are plenty of other hard games that have dedicated audiences, from Darkest Dungeon to XCom.

I think the OSR is like those hard games. They were popular way back when because game design wasn't very advanced and there wasn't much else. Over times, more player friendly options arose, and the bulk of players gravitated to those play styles. Nonetheless, the OSR has a dedicated core that prefers that style of game.

Will the OSR ever be the most mainstream style? I doubt it. That would be like Dark Souls becoming the number 1 most popular game. Many people find Dark Souls fun, but there are plenty for whom it simply isn't an enjoyable experience. They're looking for something different from their recreation time.

 

[payn]

The old systems served by or emulated by the OSR were puzzle boxes. The design of the dungeons and traps, the monsters to avoided rather than necessarily fought, and the characters with few in-game bells and whistles, those all were built around the players navigating by their own wits various challenges. The modern game’s fleshing out over time of the adventure plot and in particular the character (with its codified abilities) as the means through which the PC makes their decisions and actions more directly has changed that dynamic (and the role of monsters — with the switch from “gold as XP” to monster XP as a driver — has accompanied the switch in plot drivers).

Neither is a wrong way to play, and what we see in later D&D was present in other “crunchier” games early on (notice the design credentials for other systems the crew for 3rd edition had, for example). Likewise, many streamlined games of new systems run on more similar conceits to the older D&D model, even if there’s not the complex post-wargaming chassis (the modern D&D math is far more elegant and not the determinant either way — indeed, part of why many OSR games work is that their OGL math works better than the BX or AD&D math they’re emulating). It’s simply a matter of which focus a given game presents to players.

I see a number of blogs of writers playing AD&D or OSR with their kids and their kids’ friends, due to that open-world/puzzle box nature (even if these same writers also play 5th edition themselves). I’m reminded of how I was introduced to AD&D as a child in the same manner, stumbling through avoiding dangers and figuring out how to open dungeon gates (while quickly learning how not to get killed). As much as the ongoing stories of WotC-era D&D have given me some of my best gaming memories over my adult life, I still always think back to the AD&D of my childhood and teen years and consider how well that works as a Beer & Pretzel problem-solving game on the order of many board games. I think the OSR can approach things like that in presentation and marketing to some succes.

This is great and spot on. I think much of the headbutting that occurs from folks trying to ram all the pegs (puzzle box, plot driver) into one hole (Current edition D&D) This is where the fights happen because you get puzzle boxers lined up against plot drivers fighting over how the system should work. 5E is good in this regards because its light stance on either position. It also is easy to push in one direction or the other. Most editions cant claim to do the same. So comments like the one in the OP are just another salvo in the war on system design direction.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't think it's all about the rules themselves, I think the OSR has an image issue. Whether it's deserved or not the OSR (products and people involved in it) have a reputation for being unwelcoming to people of color. people of alternate lifestyles and so on... and lacking the willingness to change in order to become more welcoming.

I think that there is some truth to that, and I hate it.

I have stated before that the amazing thing about D&D "back in the day" when the Old School was the New School and the grognards were the wargamers who refused to play the newfangled roleplaying games ... was that it was so welcoming!

Sure, D&D had some popularity, but for the most part, it was always a haven for those that were the outcasts of the time- the people that preferred reading books to TV, that kids at the high school that weren't running for Prom King & Queen, the ones that knew when the re-runs of Star Trek:TOS were on the UHF and when Doctor Who was on PBS ('Murika!). The fact that there was a welcoming community for so many was amazing- and there were conventions and magazines and it was good.

In retrospect, of course, it wasn't that welcoming; it was primarily welcoming to white males. I think that this was reflective of societal issues at the time, but it was certainly there. That said, it is deeply disturbing to me that there are people that have essentially turned what was a bug (the exclusion of certain people) into a feature, and are using that as a cudgel to exclude people. Which is so contrary to the ethos of a game that welcomed people that often didn't find a welcoming spot elsewhere.

Grrrr. Anyway, big thanks to @Sacrosanct for this thread and for his upcoming Chromatic Dungeons project, which is an inclusive OSR.

 

[payn]

Yes. I think it needs a new name, though. Calling it "Old School" has appeal to grognards and traditionalists. I've brought a few new-ish gamers into OSR, but they're conservative guys in their 30s-40s. I don't think a name like that will have appeal to kids/teens (as someone who has run game programs for those ages as a part of my job).
I also think that we should be aware of the style in the classic products and realize that for most younger players, old art and layout will seem very dated. The same with charts, negative AC, etc. Think about how video games have been designed with skill points, increasing armor ratings, etc., and you'll see that this is a concept that is easier for young people to grasp.
It's like any form of art. There are young people who will be fans of classic movies or old music, and there are now enough people being introduced to the hobby that there is something for everyone.

IDK, I think old school renaissance is an appealing name and appropriate. I always wanted to learn how those who gamed before me did it. Complex systems intrigue me, and they don't repel me. I doubt im alone. Then again, im a sucker for nuance and understanding and a lot of folks dont give a damn about the past as long as their present is fit.

Some of the earlier artwork I agree with you on. Though, I think the vintage artwork of DCC is fantastic and mood inducing to play in that system. That is the way to do it right, no need to go with the Buddy Christ method.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I think the premise of this thread, and many of the responses, absolutely misunderstands what OSR is. It is not a return to older editions of D&D, although that's a small part of it. It is, instead, a massively creative movement that is taking games in new directions altogether, based on a few core assumptions about play. Just playing Red Box is not OSR, that's just playing Red Box. OSR has many very interesting and rather different from old editions (and new editions) of D&D. It's not locked into recreating, it's instead centered on some of the play agendas that were part of some older editions.

Five Torches Deep, for example, is an OSR game that uses 5e to create a "old school" feel. It's not just older editions.

As such, of course OSR has plenty of great capability to bring in new players. Hell, if you've played Gloomhaven, you've played and OSR onramp. If you've played the computer game Darkest Dungeon, you've actually played an OSR game -- Torchbearer. And that game is based off of Mouse Guard, which is semi-OSR, and that game is based off of Burning Wheel, which is very Indie and not OSR.

What you're describing is usually called OSA (old-school adjacent) or sometimes NuSR. Compatibility with the TSR D&D rules is core to the OSR, and every step away from that that a new game takes makes it more and more peripheral to that scene. At the point where the lines are blurry enough that an old-school inspired game is mechanically indistinguishable from any other indie game… then it's just an indie game.

 

[Retreater]

A lot of 20-somethings want to be able to say to other 20-somethings that they played an old school game at least once. Just to experience how it used to be. And a lot of the reason is a lot of the "experts" they watch in YouTube videos on D&D mention they grew up on those old school games. They want to see that old art and layout. They want to see the obscure negative AC chart because they've seen dozens of memes about THACO and want to experience it for themselves.

That's true. But I think for OSR gaming to hold with younger audiences beyond a one-off novelty, the presentation matters.
I guess I would classify myself as a third generation player (I came in during the late 80s with 2e). I discovered "old school feel" with Necromancer Games in the early 2000s in the 3e era. Prior to that I had never played many of the classic adventures of the Basic or Gygax periods.
Being introduced to that classic style by way of the contemporary Necromancer adventures opened the door for me. I was playing 3e (the current system at the time) with old school feel. That's what I advocate now for younger players because that's what worked for me, but I'm not sure it's the only way.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What you're describing is usually called OSA (old-school adjacent) or sometimes NuSR. Compatibility with the TSR D&D rules is core to the OSR, and every step away from that that a new game takes makes it more and more peripheral to that scene. At the point where the lines are blurry enough that an old-school inspired game is mechanically indistinguishable from any other indie game… then it's just an indie game.

Both of the games I mentioned prominently bill themselves as OSR, but you're saying there's a purity test they fail? Interesting.

 

[TwoSix]

What you're describing is usually called OSA (old-school adjacent) or sometimes NuSR. Compatibility with the TSR D&D rules is core to the OSR, and every step away from that that a new game takes makes it more and more peripheral to that scene. At the point where the lines are blurry enough that an old-school inspired game is mechanically indistinguishable from any other indie game… then it's just an indie game.

What about a game like MORK BORG? Pretty separated from the TSR era ruleset, but certainly has the "spirit" and gameplay of the OSR, I would say.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What about a game like MORK BORG? Pretty separated from the TSR era ruleset, but certainly has the "spirit" and gameplay of the OSR, I would say.

Yeah, the silly "must be like TSR rules" purity test is bogus. Heck, the Black Hack 2e doesn't look much like AD&D anymore, so I suppose it's not OSR enough?

 

[Retreater]

What about a game like MORK BORG? Pretty separated from the TSR era ruleset, but certainly has the "spirit" and gameplay of the OSR, I would say.

I feel there's (at least) two different ways of looking at it. The first is a game system that is close enough to be compatible with the TSR era ruleset so gamers can use adventures and other products. The other is a game system that maintains the feel of older games (D&D or not). Both are part of the OSR, but I feel that distinguishing them is important.