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

[Fanaelialae]

If the game is all about ignoring the rules and running by DM judgement, why not just play 5E? That's pratically its main mantra!

If that's the game they prefer to play, then that's the game they prefer to play. Not everyone has to play 5e.

My point is at no point is fighting evil, acting heroic, or having character motivation is stated or stressed.

Almost like going away from it is the point.

If they say their experience is X, then I say let's start from there. If you don't think the rules support that experience, it might be interesting to dig into why it looks like they don't support a play style that they do support.

 

[Minigiant]

This is what you said and claimed ^

And this is totally different (it's also wrong, but that's a different discussion). If the former was not the point, then why did you claim it? You still haven't been able to show anyone from the OSR actually doing what you said "almost every single one" did.

I dunno about you but if the game's 3rd biggest spoke attraction is "encounters aren't balanced. You need to learn to just diplomacy, trickery, and stealth or you might die" it might push the idea is to play like a "sneaky sly chicken and get the gold".

The early Spoilers Spoilers Spoilers in Game of Thrones sets the tone and display the main attraction of how the series plays out.

You are selling to mostly 3 generations that grew up on heroics.

 

[transmission89]

Which is exactly why I wont play games like Pendragon or historic simulation RPGS (any westerns or games that take place prior to the 1970's). CALL OF CTHULHU was a no go for me for decades until HARLEM UNBOUND. YOU don't see the desire of playing ones self (some variation thereof) in an RPG but I DO. Especially when "oneself" is definitely NOT the default for a heroic character in the culture. Popular or otherwise.

When the default in popular media and TTRPG's for DECADES have been white males as the prominent heroes? If I want to play someone who looks like me in a fantasy TTRPG? That's what I want to do. I play this game for fun and THAT'S part of my fun. And any game that doesn't facilitate that? isn't a game that I'm going to support with my dollars much less play. People that complain about me wanting to play in a game or world that has people who look like me in it? I have no use for them either. The fact that Seela (the aforementioned black Paladin) exists and is so prominent in a mainstream game like PATHFINDER is STILL the exception and not the rule and to mark the reason for her existence as gamist or appealing to a "power fantasy approach" minimizes/ignores the idea that maybe...just maybe, the developers of said game said to themselves that "Hey maybe we want to show that this game isn't JUST for white or white-facing people? That ANYONE can be heroic?" Not just people who "existed" in arthurian "legend". I'm just sayin'...

I mean, way to miss the point of what I’m saying, but sure. If that’s what you want from your game, great, go nuts, go for it, enjoy it. Nobody’s going to take that away from you or complain that’s how you run it at your table. Again, for me, the draw of Roleplaying games is the draw of playing someone else (the literal definition of role playing). I’ve never implied that including black characters is just for gamist/sandbox reasons. I said that their focus on inclusion (focus, not inclusion itself) is for that.

My issue definitely isn’t representation. As I stated in my posts above, it’s an important concept. It’s representation over, I guess, world integrity?

Like, these days (and again, not a knock on those who do this, just saying as to what works for my play vibe) is the expectation is the DM caters the world to a player concept and works to fit them in. Whereas my expectation at the table, I feel, for me, it should be the other way round. The players build a concept to fit the presented world.

For example, to touch another hot button issue, the combat wheel chair (I like it, i think it’s cool and if players want to create a concept with that, go nuts). But, if I have a play area with a brutal, Spartan esque environment where “weaklings” at birth are left to die, that’s going to be a non starter for a character concept. I certainly wouldn’t expect to be called exclusionary for denying that for those reasons. I’m not sacrificing the world verisimilitude for individuals to just choose whatever they want (and before people start with, yeah, but you could work it in with x,y,z. I totally get that and indeed, discussions working with the player would be had. I’m just providing a simplistic example for illustrative purposes).

I can certainly believe and do believe that anyone (race/gender, sexuality etc) can be heroic and I fully support that. Never said otherwise, just saying...

 

[transmission89]

Questing Beast describes the main attraction of OSR as wonder and exploration, immersion in the game (because your character has no or few special abilities), the danger of encounters, and DIY attitude in his "What is OSR" video. I just rewatched it.

Quite frankly I don't think any of these would attract a completely new RPGer to me. And I think they would only pull fans who are looking for it.

I think with the complaints around the advertised lethality and “hardcoreness” of OSR in YouTube videos, there is a misunderstanding.

I think it’s emphasised in introductory videos and texts because they are trying to highlight the difference in expectation to “new school players”.

Because there is that risk of increased lethality if you play in a new school way or make those assumptions. It’s not a case of “try this hard mode if you’re good enough, get good scrub”. It’s more “this is definitely something you’re going to have to think about if you pick it up”.
And of course, if you highlight this, it brings more attention to it, and makes it seem that that’s all the game is about. When it’s not.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And yet none of the games mention any of this in any of their books. But they do mention the percentage chance to move silently or the ranger's ability to set traps. So RAW, it's actually wrong to not require an unforgiving die roll.

This isn't true either. Those older books are full of passages about rulings over rules, not letting a rule hinder fun, etc. Are you arguing that the only PC who could be stealthy is a thief because they are the only ones with a Move Silently/hide in shadows skill? Nonsense. Every PC can attempt to hide. I don't have the 1e DMG in front of me, but I do the 2e one, and it repeats much of what was in the 1e DMG as well

Just in the 2e one, at a brief glance, are rules or guidelines to handle all these things, so they do very much mention it

PG30, 2e DMG: non weapon prof are optional. That means, like 1e, you narrated all the action you wanted to do. Specifically highlights how the DM has control to ignore the rules and apply rulings

PG45, 2e DMG: Fun. Highlights how the DM can make a ruling outside of rules, and the table discusses it later so as to not interrupt the game play.

PG94 2e DMG: describing encounters, and how it’s not fair to do things to PCs out of their control with no opportunity. And highlights the importance of player choice to contribute to the encounter in a meaningful way (role-playing)

PG100, 2e DMG: section on spicing up encounters and making them interesting

PG101, 2e DMG: rulings over rules, the DMG can change and adapt to fit the adventure story and not be tied to any table or rule

PG103, 2e DMG: guidelines on fixing encounters to tailor to your group

RAW, it absolutely is OK to ignore the die roll or not use it in TSR era D&D. It's not only OK, it's actively encouraged in many places in the books.

 

[gatorized]

Earlier there was a comment about “Everything grognards hate is good for new gamers.” Impudent comment aside, it got me thinking. Back in the early 80s, the game had a meteoric growth rate, so it seems that the old school style of play (being current at the time) did very well in bringing in new players. Now, 5e seems to also be doing a great job bringing in new players.

Has our community changed that much that not only is there no room in modern gaming for the OSR to bring in new gamers, but it’s actively harmful to bringing them in as that comment implies?

On one hand, I think there are elements of OSR games which might not have aged well as originally presented, but on the other, I still believe a game like B/X could be an excellent tool to being in new players. We seem to think that only the most recent edition should be used to bring in new gamers, and I don’t think I subscribe to that.

Thoughts?

What do you mean by "room"? Any number of people can choose to play any game in any style. No one can be prevented from participating in whatever way they choose.

 

[Minigiant]

I think with the complaints around the advertised lethality and “hardcoreness” of OSR in YouTube videos, there is a misunderstanding.

I think it’s emphasised in introductory videos and texts because they are trying to highlight the difference in expectation to “new school players”.

Because there is that risk of increased lethality if you play in a new school way or make those assumptions. It’s not a case of “try this hard mode if you’re good enough, get good scrub”. It’s more “this is definitely something you’re going to have to think about if you pick it up”.
And of course, if you highlight this, it brings more attention to it, and makes it seem that that’s all the game is about. When it’s not.

And that's my whole point of selling OSR poorly.

The main things said in OSR introductions is comparisons. And some of the most said comparisons are that PCs have few or no abilities, PCs can die if they make mistakes, and there is a deemphasis of roleplaying as another character.

Not "the game is so easy to hack that a DM can quickly make up new surprising challenges and monsters". One of the biggest and repeated strength of 4e by the way.

 

[transmission89]

And that's my whole point of selling OSR poorly.

The main things said in OSR introductions is comparisons. And some of the most said comparisons are that PCs have few or no abilities, PCs can die if they make mistakes, and there is a deemphasis of roleplaying as another character.

Not "the game is so easy to hack that a DM can quickly make up new surprising challenges and monsters". One of the biggest and repeated strength of 4e by the way.

Who says it sells poorly? It’s never going to compare to 5e, nothing will. The current edition of d&d is (usually ) always going to absolutely dominate the market. Thus, if something is dominant enough to essentially be the lingua franca, it makes sense to compare to that to highlight what is different and interesting no?

And certainly, PCs have fewer codified abilities. Which to my mind, means they have abilities overall as they are less restricted.

 

[thirdkingdom]

Who says it sells poorly? It’s never going to compare to 5e, nothing will. The current edition of d&d is (usually ) always going to absolutely dominate the market. Thus, if something is dominant enough to essentially be the lingua franca, it makes sense to compare to that to highlight what is different and interesting no?

Yeah, I'm not sure it's selling poorly. I've been selling OSR products through Drivethru for about a year and a half now, and my sales are doing relatively well. I'm not ready to quit my day job or anything -- and I've got no idea what sales for 5e materials are like -- but it's certainly paying for itself.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And we're talking about how to sell the OSR to new gamers in this thread. What we need is not a faithful recreation of the classic rules sets. What we need is the game as it was in play, what captures the spirit of OSR, not "Scaredy-Cat Coward: The RPG."

I forgot to respond to this part. While I disagree about "scaredy cat the rpg" as noted earlier, I do very much agree that there is opportunity to modify the original rules with some of the lessons learned over the past 40+ years. And yes, to make it more appealing to newer gamers. There's a reason why Mentzer's BECMI was much more popular than the 1e DMG, and it's not just because it was more basic. It was presentation. Gary's prose is not for everyone, as much as I personally am fond of it.

I very much am for applying some of the lessons learned mechanically (like ascending AC) and re-presenting it in a more user friendly way, and I believe we can do that and still capture the feel of the old school games. I'm banking on it. Quite literally lol