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

[jmartkdr2]

The tradition seems to be that they're either a coward who avoids all combat, or they are dead.

And that right there is why I've never been inclined to play any OSR game. Maybe if a dm I knew and trusted was running it, but only then. Because this is all I know about what OSR is supposed to be.

 

[Democratus]

The tradition seems to be that they're either a coward who avoids all combat, or they are dead.

Based on what input? This isn't how it was in '82 when I first played it, and it still isn't true 40 years later.

Indiana Jones was careful when navigating the temple, stealing the idol, and getting the heck out. But I wouldn't call the character a coward.

 

[Steampunkette]

Yep. And perpetuating these stereotypes contributes to maintaining said perceptions.

I'm saying that we should stop publicly dercying "OSR neckbeards" - therefore keeping the meme going for any new people who visit the board - and get on with talking about the game we all love.

... yeah that doesn't really deal with the actual problem at all. The Perception issue you're referring to may suck, but not nearly as much as the reality.

The issue is that there -are- players who are jerks in the OSR community of a particular type. The "Back in MY day" player who enjoys the OSR but belittles the younger generation does keep younger people from playing. Generally through backhanded compliments, complaints about character ethnicity, gender, or sexuality being "Unrealistic", and other comments across a significant generational and typically political divide.

I'm really glad you haven't had to deal with them much in your 600+ players over the years, which is more D&D players than I've played with... or, heck, probably even talked to!

But with far fewer experiences and interactions I've dealt with a whole lot more of it than you seem to have. Maybe that's my gender and identity making me more of a target than you typically get at your tables or maybe you're just really lucky. Or maybe your table puts down better rules regarding that kinda thing than a lot of the ones I've been to...

But not talking about those specific players doesn't make them go away. It just enables them to continue, unchallenged.

 

[Democratus]

The issue is that there -are- players who are jerks in the OSR community of a particular type.

This is a non statement. There are jerks in every community. It isn't an OSR issue that jerks exist; it's a human issue.

 

[Steampunkette]

This is a non statement. There are jerks in every community. It isn't an OSR issue that jerks exist; it's a human issue.

This is a statement designed to minimize a problem in a given community by pointing the finger at other communities having problems.

It does nothing to help the issue, whatsoever, perceptual or otherwise, and exists exclusively as a toothless deflection.

The question is whether OSR has a place in modern gaming to bring in new players. Pointing out a problem OSR has in bringing in new players is a valid topic of discussion.

 

[Retreater]

I think the modern interpretation of OSR is indeed to play a "scaredy-cat coward" or die. Totally agree.
Every game I've seen in the OSR movement and every game I've played has been reinforcing this concept.
Characters are worthless, have little chance of success against even mundane situations, are typically evenly matched or even underpowered compared to even the most superficial enemies.
And yes, that's not fun for many players. And it's frustrating for GMs who want the game to feel exciting and heroic, instead of boring slogs of routine 10 ft. square searches, an adventure of one battle with 2 kobolds that requires 7 days of bed rest to recuperate.
That said, this isn't nearly the game that I came to the hobby with. The reason why - we BS'ed it. We didn't give a damn what those books said. We created badass characters who invented their own spells, laid waste to massive cities, and conquered the gods.
OSR does a bad job of capturing the badass, because it's too preoccupied with presenting a faithful recreation of the past instead of the way we actually played it.

 

[Steampunkette]

I think the modern interpretation of OSR is indeed to play a "scaredy-cat coward" or die. Totally agree.
Every game I've seen in the OSR movement and every game I've played has been reinforcing this concept.
Characters are worthless, have little chance of success against even mundane situations, are typically evenly matched or even underpowered compared to even the most superficial enemies.
And yes, that's not fun for many players. And it's frustrating for GMs who want the game to feel exciting and heroic, instead of boring slogs of routine 10 ft. square searches, an adventure of one battle with 2 kobolds that requires 7 days of bed rest to recuperate.
That said, this isn't nearly the game that I came to the hobby with. The reason why - we BS'ed it. We didn't give a damn what those books said. We created badass characters who invented their own spells, laid waste to massive cities, and conquered the gods.
OSR does a bad job of capturing the badass, because it's too preoccupied with presenting a faithful recreation of the past instead of the way we actually played it.

That is another great point on why the OSR has trouble attracting younger players compared to things like 5e.

I can always run a 5e game and introduce some big scary monsters for the "Run away!" moment. But that moment ends.

In an OSR game that's the whole game.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This is a non statement. There are jerks in every community. It isn't an OSR issue that jerks exist; it's a human issue.

I don't think you're accounting for the fact that the OSR community is smaller than, say, the 5e community.

If you have one vocal jerk in a group of 9 other awesome people, that can color people's perceptions more than 10 jerks in a group of 90 other awesome folks. With the larger group, the odds are much greater that someone who encounters a jerk will also get to interact with some of the awesome people and therefore realize that the jerk isn't representative of the group's views. Whereas with the smaller group, that's less likely, despite the proportions being identical.

It isn't fair, but I do think the OSR's relatively smaller size can give such voices more weight in people's perceptions than is warranted.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It doesn't matter how easy it is to learn if I don't want to play that style of game. "It's easy" makes someone borrow the book and never buy after being disappointed their fighter is a scaredy cat coward and also dead.

PC death is certainly more common in that style of play. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Some people might be disappointed that their fighter died. Others would simply roll up a new PC and try out a different archetype to play. It all comes down to preference. Seeing as how the OSR is pretty lively, there seems to be a decent chunk of people who aren't turned off by cautious, more lethal play of the TSR editions.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The tradition seems to be that they're either a coward who avoids all combat, or they are dead.

And that right there is why I've never been inclined to play any OSR game. Maybe if a dm I knew and trusted was running it, but only then. Because this is all I know about what OSR is supposed to be.

I think the modern interpretation of OSR is indeed to play a "scaredy-cat coward" or die. Totally agree.
Every game I've seen in the OSR movement and every game I've played has been reinforcing this concept.
Characters are worthless, have little chance of success against even mundane situations, are typically evenly matched or even underpowered compared to even the most superficial enemies.
And yes, that's not fun for many players. And it's frustrating for GMs who want the game to feel exciting and heroic, instead of boring slogs of routine 10 ft. square searches, an adventure of one battle with 2 kobolds that requires 7 days of bed rest to recuperate.
That said, this isn't nearly the game that I came to the hobby with. The reason why - we BS'ed it. We didn't give a damn what those books said. We created badass characters who invented their own spells, laid waste to massive cities, and conquered the gods.
OSR does a bad job of capturing the badass, because it's too preoccupied with presenting a faithful recreation of the past instead of the way we actually played it.

That is another great point on why the OSR has trouble attracting younger players compared to things like 5e.

I can always run a 5e game and introduce some big scary monsters for the "Run away!" moment. But that moment ends.

In an OSR game that's the whole game.

I truly am sorry if you all feel that's what the OSR is about. I've been playing 1e from 1981 to 2012 before finally moving to 5e playtest, and even then I still play 1e now and then.

OSR is not about running away all the time. Not even really close. It's about being cautious and finding creative ways around monsters that don't always result in a fight. You don't just run from room to room ala arena style combat and one combat encounter to the next. You don't assume every encounter should be winnable. That style of play is a feature, not a bug, for many. Like me. Just one combat after another? Boring. Always assumed you should be able to beat every encounter? Boring and no sense of excitement. I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Either way, you all are mistaken about how OSR games are actually designed. And played by most fans of the OSR. There was plenty of combat in TSR era D&D where players survived and advanced. This idea that you either ran away or died shows either a strong disdain for OSR by using inaccurate hyperbole, or is just flat out ignorant about how the games were played. If your assumptions were true, there wouldn't ever be any PC in TSR era D&D that rose above 1st level. And we know that's not true.