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

[Fanaelialae]

As I tried to explain the difference between “OSR” and “modern”, it struck me that there was an approach to combat other than the usual ones (combat as war, combat as sport). I did some searching, found nothing, and picked a name that seemed fitting. What would you propose? I don’t think pretending that it’s not its own thing does it any service. If it’s something distinct, it deserves to be recognized as such and discussed accordingly.

I've been giving it some thought the past few hours, and the more I think about it, the more I think "combat as performance" is conceptually limited. It does occupy the right space - that being that it distinguishes concepts that are often lumped in with CaS that don't really belong. However, I don't think that space is limited to performance.

I think it's actually "combat as narrative".

Sometimes it might be a performance, such as in a superhero game where you show off how awesome the heroes are against a group of lowly mooks.

Other times it might be an alternate objective. Sure, we know the heroes won't die, but can they stop the evil Dr Rick from turning the people of the world into Cronenburgs?

Combat in this is likely never random, always serving some purpose toward building a shared narrative. The consequences typically won't be life or death, but there's still a purpose. It could be to make the heroes look awesome. It might be to find out whether Superman can save Jimmy (and what happens as a consequence if he does/doesn't succeed).

A game I think falls in this category is Tenra Bansho Zero. A player can lose their character in two ways. By checking off their mortally wounded health box (in which case you die at the end of the encounter, unless healed), or by accruing too much karma (in which case you become an "evil" NPC). However, both of these are player facing options, meaning the player makes a choice to engage with them, giving them significantly more control of their character's narrative than they would have in many other other RPGs, including D&D.

 

[kenada]

I think it's actually "combat as narrative".

I was going to suggest Combat as Drama, but that seems good too.

Was it the comparison to professional wrestling? I thought that was cool now. /me remembers being laughed at for wearing a Hulk Hogan t-shirt in 6th grade in the early ’90s.

 

[Campbell]

I was going to suggest Combat as Drama, but that seems good too.

Was it the comparison to professional wrestling? I thought that was cool now. /me remembers being laughed at for wearing a Hulk Hogan t-shirt in 6th grade in the early ’90s.

I personally think it's important to distinguish between combat as vehicle for storytelling (as in something prepared or that we're specifically driving towards) and combat done primarily as vehicle for narrative or emotional stakes. Both are pretty distinct from the sort of challenge oriented combat as sport seen in more gamist takes on modern D&D, but are fairly different from each other in execution and feel.

This might be a good topic for it's own thread.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I think its also important to make a distinction between Playstyle and System, Systems do lean toward certain playstyles of course ('System Matters!') but that doesn't, contrary to the hidden connotation of that phrase, imply they always do so inflexibly.

So a 5e game can be run with a CaW style where the GM constructs challenges to be overcome via 'shenanigans and deck stacking' by making them overwhelming, a CaS style where the risk of failure is very real but depends on the party's in moment-to-moment kit and tactical choices (did we pick the right spell? did we smite at the right time? did we get advantage wherever we can? are we sufficiently optimized?), or a CaP where the built in failure states guarded against by the GM and combat rules exist to immerse the player in the 'feel and texture' of a fight scene.

Another system may do one, some or all of these better than 5e (like, in my eyes, Pathfinder 2e does CaW and CaS better, but the GM needs to walk on eggshells to let it do CaP, and really, why even go through all the effort of these complex and intricate combat mechanics? its just in the way and 5e would do it better) but that doesn't suggest that it isn't happening in 5e, or even that systems that do them individually worse, can't be perfect for a group's preferred blend.

Combat in an RPG is like beer, the menu description could easily read like "A full bodied CaS base from our diligent combat rules, with permeating undertones of CaW conveyed by our difficulty and exploration mechanics, and the gentlest notes of CaP in the protections against full character death" (that turned into a description of PF2e real quick) with another system also having all three of those things, but conveyed completely differently, which could very well be another group's ideal.

 

[haakon1]

Responding to the OP question. I don't see a reason new players can't come in with OSR rules -- if you mean stuff like AD&D 1e and 2e rules. I last ran AD&D 1e in 1996-2002 (yes, when 2e and 3e were the in-print editions).

I ran it with simple rules: just PHB, DMG, Monster Manuals/Fiend Folio, Legends & Lore, and Greyhawk setting.

The starting player options were all contained in the PHB, and with other players and the DM helping the new player create a character live, and teaching through playing, it worked fine. All of my players were either completely new to RPG's or people who knew AD&D but hadn't played in years, about 50/50 on that. It was great fun, given the longevity of play, and "converted" 3 of the players into DM's of their own, spawning new campaigns in 3 states -- I think everyone now runs 3.5e (I converted both my active campaigns in 2002 to 3e and 2003 to 3.5e), PF1, or 5e.

I do think 2e is a little more complicated than 1e, especially if you bring in all the splatbooks. And based on the up-and-down popularity and cultural umph of D&D in different eras, it seems 1e, 3/3.5/PF1, and 5e were the easy/attractive ones to learn.

 

[transmission89]

I do think 2e is a little more complicated than 1e, especially if you bring in all the splatbooks. And based on the up-and-down popularity and cultural umph of D&D in different eras, it seems 1e, 3/3.5/PF1, and 5e were the easy/attractive ones to learn.

Oo, I’d be really interested in your POV as to why you think that.

I came to the OSR from later editions and found 2e easier to grock than 1e personally. For me, it was the clearer layout and organisation of core plus an initiative system I could understand. Of course, it does start bogging down the more you pile on that core.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I do think 2e is a little more complicated than 1e, especially if you bring in all the splatbooks. And based on the up-and-down popularity and cultural umph of D&D in different eras, it seems 1e, 3/3.5/PF1, and 5e were the easy/attractive ones to learn.

I'd also be curious about your POV.

My experience was that 1e was really simple in actual play, but that's because everyone played it like how B/X did it (side initiative with missile/magic/melee phases) or the gold box games (individual initiative), and with none of the additional, expanded rules listed in the 1e DMG used at all. When 2e came out, the only difference I remember is everyone moving to individual initiative, but I'm sure we did that before we got 2e. It's hard for me to remember now, though. I was mostly B/X with a bit of 1e, then 2e, then more 1e in my play history.

My experience was that virtually everyone actually played using only the B/X rules (~5 pages of very straightforward rules) with individual initiative that they learned from the computer games (Pool of Radiance or Hillsfar, or the Dark Sun games, or with Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale). Or you learned from people who learned that way, or you switched to those video game rules because they made combat run better. Less like a simulation and more like a game. It was the "actual play live stream" of the late 80s. I, for one, distinctly remember the gold box games teaching me about the fighter "sweep" rule that's buried below the "attacks per melee round" table in the 1e PHB. I don't know how many tables I had to teach about that, but I think it was at least three!

I'd say that 2e only becomes more complicated when you add on 2e setting-specific rules or, as you say, all the kit books. 1e only appears simple when you drop all the extra rules or you already have the rules from other editions memorized so you aren't forced to read the actual book to learn the game. 1e is the only edition that feels like it gets more complicated when you open the DMG. I don't think 1e or 2e were particularly easy to learn without a lot of help, but I do think 2e is a much, much better presentation. 2e at least makes optional rules clearly optional, and the sections don't overlap or run together like 1e does.

 

[haakon1]

Background: I learned to play AD&D 1e, and learned to DM AD&D 1e Oriental Adventures. In all, I played or DM’d 1e for about 13 years, but I only was a player in 2e, and only for a year or so. I never played Basic, though I DM’d many modules and materials in B/X rules. I never played computer D&D prior to Temple of Elemental Evil (2003, 3e).

In recent years, my exposure to 2e has been reading Dungeon Magazine - I’m trying to read the whole thing. My impression of 2e issues is the rules can be overly complex compared to 1e. E.g., non-weapon proficiency, specialist MU’s, specialty clerics, spells not appearing in the other editions, references to books for underwater combat and ship-to-ship rules.

But the main reasons I didn’t get into 2e:
(1) I happened to be playing a half orc assassin in 1e, in 1988, when 2e came out. I was so excited to see the new rule book, until I realized my character was written out of the rules. That soured me on all the “Moms against D&D” inspired changes like Tanarii and all that.
(2) I’m a huge fan of Gary Gygax and Greyhawk, and the roots of the game. 2e is the era when TSR ran off Gary, made Forgotten Realms the default setting, published the joke version of Castle Greyhawk, published a revision of the setting I didn’t like (From the Ashes) that destroyed my favorite country (Bissel) and contradicted what had happened in “actual play” in my campaigns/what happened if the PC’s won in the biggest adventure path of AD&D 1e (G123/D123/Q1), and finally cancelled Greyhawk.

So, I stopped playing at all for a while, disillusioned by 2e, until I decided to start a 1e homebrew campaign … got on the Greyhawk home version kick … 3e … 3.5e … and even went to the 4e launch event in Seattle and got a signed book.

Before getting that feeling of 2e launch (where’s my half orc assassin?) again with 4e (played for a few years, but never converted what I DM’d), and deciding to stick with 3.5e and home brewed Greyhawk thereafter. Nothing against 5e, but I just haven’t invested the time to learn it.

So, assuming you folks do OSR AD&D, why? What’s your path and POV?

As you can imagine, “revision churn” and ”rules bloat” annoy me. Part of the reason is perhaps that I’m more into Fluff (story) than Crunch (rules, CharOp), and part is I think the publishers audience is people playing 50 times a year. Whereas the game I DM’d today had its 21 session, and 3rd anniversary this weekend. That rate of play and attitude just doesn’t need or want “the game physics“ to keep changing with more rules, or changed rules.

 

[imagineGod]

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?

Some people use "grognards" always with negative connotations as a sort of out-cast from the modern Zeitgeist. . Historically,from French legions, it meant veterans who grumble, so was not positive even then.

The use of the term has not improved with time and still bring used to stereotype people negatively who understand historic games legacy.

 

[transmission89]

Background: I learned to play AD&D 1e, and learned to DM AD&D 1e Oriental Adventures. In all, I played or DM’d 1e for about 13 years, but I only was a player in 2e, and only for a year or so. I never played Basic, though I DM’d many modules and materials in B/X rules. I never played computer D&D prior to Temple of Elemental Evil (2003, 3e).

In recent years, my exposure to 2e has been reading Dungeon Magazine - I’m trying to read the whole thing. My impression of 2e issues is the rules can be overly complex compared to 1e. E.g., non-weapon proficiency, specialist MU’s, specialty clerics, spells not appearing in the other editions, references to books for underwater combat and ship-to-ship rules.

But the main reasons I didn’t get into 2e:
(1) I happened to be playing a half orc assassin in 1e, in 1988, when 2e came out. I was so excited to see the new rule book, until I realized my character was written out of the rules. That soured me on all the “Moms against D&D” inspired changes like Tanarii and all that.
(2) I’m a huge fan of Gary Gygax and Greyhawk, and the roots of the game. 2e is the era when TSR ran off Gary, made Forgotten Realms the default setting, published the joke version of Castle Greyhawk, published a revision of the setting I didn’t like (From the Ashes) that destroyed my favorite country (Bissel) and contradicted what had happened in “actual play” in my campaigns/what happened if the PC’s won in the biggest adventure path of AD&D 1e (G123/D123/Q1), and finally cancelled Greyhawk.

So, I stopped playing at all for a while, disillusioned by 2e, until I decided to start a 1e homebrew campaign … got on the Greyhawk home version kick … 3e … 3.5e … and even went to the 4e launch event in Seattle and got a signed book.

Before getting that feeling of 2e launch (where’s my half orc assassin?) again with 4e (played for a few years, but never converted what I DM’d), and deciding to stick with 3.5e and home brewed Greyhawk thereafter. Nothing against 5e, but I just haven’t invested the time to learn it.

So, assuming you folks do OSR AD&D, why? What’s your path and POV?

As you can imagine, “revision churn” and ”rules bloat” annoy me. Part of the reason is perhaps that I’m more into Fluff (story) than Crunch (rules, CharOp), and part is I think the publishers audience is people playing 50 times a year. Whereas the game I DM’d today had its 21 session, and 3rd anniversary this weekend. That rate of play and attitude just doesn’t need or want “the game physics“ to keep changing with more rules, or changed rules.

That’s cool. Totally understandable. I’ve found though if you cut all the optional rules from the 2e phb, it pretty much runs like a souped up B/X.

I started getting into the OSR scene when wotc did the premium reprints (pathfinder 1e was my introduction to the hobby). I got the 1e prints which were certainly a good read, but was left confused about how to even play. The 2e reprints then made more sense, but because I was coming from a modern mindset, I didn’t understand some concepts ( what do you mean 3-40 creatures in an encounter? How do you balance these? How do you know how much treasure to place for each level? Etc). When they released the Mentzer basic PDF, it began to click. So 2e is my primary ruleset, but I play it more in the resource, dungeon crawl format of classic and 1e.

For me, I love the optional content. It clicked for me that I don’t have to use books x,y and z, I can just use certain elements from them. They aren’t to be eaten whole, they are a buffet of ideas you pick and choose from. I’ll grab the half orc from complete book of humanoids, the assassin from the scarlet brotherhood, the revised spells from spells and magic, the expanded equipment from combat and tactics etc.

I also use OSE heavily (for my after school club) and would’ve probably only used that had it been available when I first started on the OSR path. But to be fair, it took me a while to appreciate the benefits of race as class, at first, I thought the concept too limiting, but now actually prefer it.