D&D General Why is "OSR style" D&D Fun For You?

[Reynard]

I'm not trying to make a hard distinction; certainly plenty of ttrpg products of any kind have a heartbreaker quality, considering wotc's dominance in the hobby.

But I was thinking of things like Amanda Lee Franck's You've Got a Job on a Garbage Barge. Weird, self-illustrated in a distinctive style, zine format, non-traditional fantasy.

That looks cool. I was surprised at the price initially but thinking about it, it's not bad for what might be a couple dozen table hours.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah I found this back in the 90s with Vampire.

The Vampire players looked down on D&D. I never really liked Vampire just didn't care/not my thing.

How's that Vampire game working out these days.

I'm sure that was the problem.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Snubbing modern gaming or other styles is kind of the point.

It shouldn't be. Its possible to think older games and styles had some virtues that may have been left behind without rejecting the virtues of more modern designs. Its even possible to combine the two in fruitful ways (looking at Cepheus Deluxe here).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm aware, but there is a third option: a distinction that has no prescribed mechanical teeth. For example, a system in which a fighter saves the halfling villages, and thus the dm decides that they get a +2 to halfling reaction rolls. There would be no good way for a system to predict the specific things that happen in a campaign, but it can give a light mechanical framework (reaction rolls) that the GM can use to express the changing state of the world

I'll acknowledge that, but I think in many (probably most cases) those distinctions should be pretty specific an ongoing. If your system can't handle some of the things I'm talking about, I think your system is overly schematic (and this was why people were constantly hacking specialty classes back in the OD&D days).

 

[Micah Sweet]

It shouldn't be. Its possible to think older games and styles had some virtues that may have been left behind without rejecting the virtues of more modern designs. Its even possible to combine the two in fruitful ways (looking at Cepheus Deluxe here).

It depends on what virtues. Some ideas are contradictory. You have to pick one.

 

[Zardnaar]

It shouldn't be. Its possible to think older games and styles had some virtues that may have been left behind without rejecting the virtues of more modern designs. Its even possible to combine the two in fruitful ways (looking at Cepheus Deluxe here).

Once again you're assuming newer equals better.

It's better in terns of being more popular. Kinda like Toyota doesn't mean its the best for everyone.

Not everyone likes D&D as their favorite rpg either for whatever reason.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It depends on what virtues. Some ideas are contradictory. You have to pick one.

However, if you want to sell me that includes everything in the OSR, its going to be hard going.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Once again you're assuming newer equals better.

I'm assuming no such thing. What I'm not assuming is that everything old is good and everything new is bad, which is the only way rejecting everything for older styles makes sense.

 

[Zardnaar]

However, if you want to sell me that includes everything in the OSR, its going to be hard going.

Parts of the OSR contradict themselves. Depends on what you like. Find what works for you.

Clones of B/X with ascending AC and Castles and Crusades are some of the easiest D&Ds I've ever run. I include 5E in that statement which is really only easy compared with 3E and 4E.

Note I'm playing 5E over OSR that's more to do with player availability. Or DM availability.

If it wasn't for OSR though I wouldn't be playing 5E.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Parts of the OSR contradict themselves. Depends on what you like. Find what works for you.

And parts combine perfectly fine with each other and with more modern ideas. The suggestion that everything old school is utterly incompatible with everything in more modern design ideas is simply ludicrous.