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

[Thomas Shey]

I feel like the issue here is about concrete mechanical choices as opposed to freedom. In general, I think most OSR fans would suggest the latter is better. Of course, it means that the GM has significantly more input into how much fun you have playing your character, which is a bit weird.

That's why, while I like some old school approaches quite a bit I've made it pretty clear "rulings not rules" isn't one of them, and requires a pretty narrow view of old school games (i.e. very early D&D almost exclusively) to make it a defining trait.

There were no lack of rules in Traveller. Nor in RuneQuest. Nor in Rolemaster. Nor (oh gods no) in Chivalry and Sorcery.

But that's the gig; as I've noted, early edition D&D fans have kind of tried to box off "Old School" (which makes no sense) and "Old School Revival/Renaissance" (which only makes a little since there are several other games that by any other sense are "old school" that have had retroclones and other modern game based off them) as only about the game they're interested in, and to be frank, I find it pretty irritating.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Another light house rule I've seen (first in the Black Pudding zine, IIRC) is just to let Fighters and Fighter-types declare a special maneuver whenever they roll a Nat 20- knock the enemy prone, push them off a ledge, disarm them, pin them to the wall with an arrow, etc. Optionally granting a saving throw to the bad guy to avoid if it's something really powerful which would end the fight. Of course this one doesn't give you a cool choice except WHEN you roll a Nat 20, so maybe one could make it more accessible by, say, allowing such maneuvers to be declared at a -4 TH or something, and succeed on a hit (with Nat 20s always hitting, of course).

That's something similar to the way that games like Mythras or AGE handle it.

(I'm also a little cynical about the idea you couldn't have a page of listed example actions for combat in a game group that is often happy as a clam to have several pages of spells listed even in the more abbreviated cases.)

 

[bloodtide]

So, disclaimer, there is no Badwrongfun. Anyway you play the game is fine. Your way is equal to all other ways.

Any and all games can be played in any style. So...

OSR games are MUCH more preferred to be set in dark, weird, strange, macabre, bizarre, or uncanny type setting. Most OSR gamers prefer this type of style setting, but not all.

Modern games are MUCH more preferred to be set in idealistic normal settings, with all current beliefs on full display. D&D 3x and up gamers much more prefer this type of setting, but not all.

It's the comparison between a typical 70/80s fantasy/horror movie and a typical 2020's superhero movie(specifically a Marvel Movie).

So:

DM: "In the middle of the room, the blood covered Dark Altar glows with a soft white unearthly light. A strong stench of rotting flesh and vile fluids fills the room. Dark, dirty blood oozes from the altar..bubbling and popping as it slides along the stones. The blood flows together to form a vaguely humanoid shape...and slithers across the stone floor toward you..."

And

"In the room the stone table glows with magic light. The room smells bad. Blood flows off the table and forms a Blood Elemental. It moves forward to attack."

The first one is the more OSR style, the second the more modern one.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I believe various versions of Castles and Crusades' optional multiclassing (which has varied a lot over time) has been like freeform multiclassing or dual classing.

C&C has two (maybe three) versions of multiclassing, last I looked. There's traditional AD&D multiclassing, where eligible characters level two or three classes at the same time, splitting XP between then. I think there's also dual classing, where progress on one class can be abandoned in favor of starting a second one.

But the best one, IMO, is class-and-a-half multiclassing, which allows characters to become the equivalent of a half-caster by incorporating some abilities from another class into theirs, at the cost of some leveling speed. So C&C, which has spell-less rangers and paladins by default, can allow ones more like WotC D&D paladins and rangers by adding in a half-class of druid or cleric, or you can get much more creative. Want a barbarian with half-class druid abilities? An assassin with half-class illusionist spells? A ranger who knows wizard spells?

 

[Malmuria]

But that's the gig; as I've noted, early edition D&D fans have kind of tried to box off "Old School" (which makes no sense) and "Old School Revival/Renaissance" (which only makes a little since there are several other games that by any other sense are "old school" that have had retroclones and other modern game based off them) as only about the game they're interested in, and to be frank, I find it pretty irritating.

It makes sense if you look at the genealogy of the OSR via OSRIC, which was initially just to do with keeping the AD&D ruleset still alive and legally publishing for it. It wasn't about other 70s-era games. The series of retroclones of different editions, the principles, the more expansive definitions--all that came later.

 

[deganawida]

It's been mentioned a few times, but, for me, it's the thought of really placing myself in the character and imagining that I am actually fighting the orcs, investigating the dungeon, and so forth. I'm more theater-of-the-mind, so this combined with ToTM provides an experience which I cannot get elsewhere.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It makes sense if you look at the genealogy of the OSR via OSRIC, which was initially just to do with keeping the AD&D ruleset still alive and legally publishing for it. It wasn't about other 70s-era games. The series of retroclones of different editions, the principles, the more expansive definitions--all that came later.

I appreciate that (and thanks for the reminder), but at some point if you're going to use a term as denotationally broad as "Old School" you shouldn't be surprised when people aren't happy about trying to keep it to yourself.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think that's what he was asking for. He's looking for some of the flexibility that WotC-era D&D gives in terms of customizing and changing a given character as they progress.

I'm not looking for it but this is what I meant.

OSR games mostly only allow for a small handful of builds approved by the system chosen by your class. With the smaller list of options and little way to tweak them at start or during play, the games can focus more of providing those specific class fantasies stronger.

It's a matter of focus.

Focus on 3-6 classes
OR
Focus on 12-15 classes with 2-8 subclasses each and 2-4 dozen feats.

 

[Lanefan]

Sort of. Because, frankly, those diegetic events and acquisitions of items are often suspiciously specific to the classes being played. As in, funnily enough that fighter will always find magic armor and magic shield and a magic weapon. And a few levels later, will find slightly more powerful versions of those same armor, shield and weapon. And a little later, slightly more powerful versions yet again.

That entirely depends on how the DM places treasure, and whether it's done randomly (or unmodified if using a canned module) or whether it's modified or tailored to suit the characters in play.

I'm not at all a fan of the latter, for two reasons: one, what you're doing is often transparent as plate glass from the players' side leaving it all feeling contrived and hollow; and two, I expect there to be enough character turnover to likely make anything I place for a specific character redundant by the time the party - with different characters - ever gets to it.

And what you defeat plays into it as well. Defeating lots of wizards and mages means that the PC mages are likely to clean up while the warriors just get cash, while defeating lots of powerful warbands means the warriors will do well in items while the mages go without.

 

[Raiztt]

I've never played an OSR game as far as I know, but I've never had any desire to because it doesn't seem to me that characters advance in any interesting, non-tread mill sort of way. Please convince me that I am wrong.