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

[bloodtide]

I would agree that for me 5e obviates some of the need for player skill, partly through mechanics and partly through the play style evident even in adventures like the Lost Mines of Phandelver. Mechanics such as cantrips are extremely powerful relative to what OS characters can do, and come at no cost. Characters quickly acquire an array of special abilities that can help them navigate exploration and combat challenges. Meanwhile, there is a strong expectation that encounters will be balanced and appropriate to level.

I agree. 5E is made this way. Nearly anyone can make a character and play in a game....with near zero real world skills or effort. It makes for a great best selling game.

That's just me though. I'm sure plenty of people play 5e in a more old school way and manage somehow

I make the game roughly 100% harder then the By-the-book way. Lots of players hate it, but some love it.

 

[Hussar]

Even at a level per adventure that's a pretty long run before you get access to it.

True. But are we talking about how a given table was playing, or how the game was presented? Because the game, as presented, had you gain, by and large, one or even two levels by the end of the module. You were supposed to be 3rd level or even 4th by the end of Keep on the Borderlands so you could move on to Isle of Dread.

Serial modules like the Slave Lords or GDQ also presumed about one level per adventure.

This is where talking about Old School really breaks down. People presume that just because they played a certain way, that's the way the game was meant to be played. High lethality, glacially slow advancement, all these things might have been true at your table. They were not actually part of the game as presented though. 1st to 5th level? You're basically finished Keep on the Borderlands and a small ways into Isle of Dread by that point. Even the 1e DMG talks about hitting name level in one year of play.

It's so frustrating to try to have conversations about this because you see it all the time. Look at the back and forth I had about magic items.

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.

If so, that’s a deviation from the playstyle (which, of course, is fine if that’s what you’re going for, but then we’re talking about something else.) Treasure tables are the standard way to handle this without illusionism or other GM fiat.

Yup.

Look at those tables. Look at the weighting of the rolls.

How many magic bec du corbin do you see on those tables?

There's nothing stopping a DM from redoing and expanding those tables (which, let's face it, are woefully inadequate when it comes to weapons and armour).

True, but, that's kind of the point. As soon as we're talking about a DM redoing and expanding the tables, that's just proof that the tables are weighted to produce certain results. The DM wouldn't be redoing the tables otherwise. IOW, the game strongly pushes players to make certain choices. Sure, you can use a polearm, but, you're basically gimping your character doing so. So, everyone takes a longsword because they know that the DM won't put magic items geared to my choices in the game, so, I'll just play the odds.

And, oh look, playing the odds pays off every time.

 

[Malmuria]

This is where talking about Old School really breaks down. People presume that just because they played a certain way, that's the way the game was meant to be played. High lethality, glacially slow advancement, all these things might have been true at your table. They were not actually part of the game as presented though. 1st to 5th level? You're basically finished Keep on the Borderlands and a small ways into Isle of Dread by that point.

OSR principles are definitely a reconstruction of a particular style of play, with elements of outright invention. It's clear that people played all sorts of different ways even from the very beginning. Even Gygax and Arneson seemed to have very different games. Even within the OSR, the bulk of the modules are for low levels, and many newer games don't even have levels.

That said, I still think later editions leaned more into high fantasy, whether via "monty haul," heroism with a certain amount of plot armor, or wotc style character building. 5e definitely feels more high powered to my players than OSE, due to the presence in the former of things like cantrips, darkvision, per rest abilities, and the like.

Even the 1e DMG talks about hitting name level in one year of play.

Although, that's with between 50-75 sessions, with sessions being 10-ish hours

Classic Vs. The Past

A PDF of this 60 page adventure is available on DriveThruRPG. An introductory delve into a densely interactive classic dungeon crawl design...

alldeadgenerations.blogspot.com

 

[Micah Sweet]

True. But are we talking about how a given table was playing, or how the game was presented? Because the game, as presented, had you gain, by and large, one or even two levels by the end of the module. You were supposed to be 3rd level or even 4th by the end of Keep on the Borderlands so you could move on to Isle of Dread.

Serial modules like the Slave Lords or GDQ also presumed about one level per adventure.

This is where talking about Old School really breaks down. People presume that just because they played a certain way, that's the way the game was meant to be played. High lethality, glacially slow advancement, all these things might have been true at your table. They were not actually part of the game as presented though. 1st to 5th level? You're basically finished Keep on the Borderlands and a small ways into Isle of Dread by that point. Even the 1e DMG talks about hitting name level in one year of play.

It's so frustrating to try to have conversations about this because you see it all the time. Look at the back and forth I had about magic items.





True, but, that's kind of the point. As soon as we're talking about a DM redoing and expanding the tables, that's just proof that the tables are weighted to produce certain results. The DM wouldn't be redoing the tables otherwise. IOW, the game strongly pushes players to make certain choices. Sure, you can use a polearm, but, you're basically gimping your character doing so. So, everyone takes a longsword because they know that the DM won't put magic items geared to my choices in the game, so, I'll just play the odds.

And, oh look, playing the odds pays off every time.

Honestly, I've never used published adventures for any system as anything other than material to be repurposed for homebrew campaigns. As a result, I just don't see them as indicative of how a game is meant to be played. Rather, the rulebook itself provides that guidance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

True. But are we talking about how a given table was playing, or how the game was presented? Because the game, as presented, had you gain, by and large, one or even two levels by the end of the module. You were supposed to be 3rd level or even 4th by the end of Keep on the Borderlands so you could move on to Isle of Dread.

Serial modules like the Slave Lords or GDQ also presumed about one level per adventure.

This is where talking about Old School really breaks down. People presume that just because they played a certain way, that's the way the game was meant to be played. High lethality, glacially slow advancement, all these things might have been true at your table. They were not actually part of the game as presented though. 1st to 5th level? You're basically finished Keep on the Borderlands and a small ways into Isle of Dread by that point. Even the 1e DMG talks about hitting name level in one year of play.

It's so frustrating to try to have conversations about this because you see it all the time. Look at the back and forth I had about magic items.





True, but, that's kind of the point. As soon as we're talking about a DM redoing and expanding the tables, that's just proof that the tables are weighted to produce certain results. The DM wouldn't be redoing the tables otherwise. IOW, the game strongly pushes players to make certain choices. Sure, you can use a polearm, but, you're basically gimping your character doing so. So, everyone takes a longsword because they know that the DM won't put magic items geared to my choices in the game, so, I'll just play the odds.

And, oh look, playing the odds pays off every time.

I've always wondered: what games do you enjoy playing? You know what I like.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, I've never used published adventures for any system as anything other than material to be repurposed for homebrew campaigns. As a result, I just don't see them as indicative of how a game is meant to be played. Rather, the rulebook itself provides that guidance.

See, right there, that's going to MASSIVELY color how someone sees a game. The authors of the game are often the ones who are writing a lot of those adventures. At the very least, the company producing that game are producing that module (typically - yes, I realize that with OGL and whatnot, that's a lot fuzzier). Plus, the early modules were very much written with a pedagogical bent in mind - THIS is how the game is meant to be played. Keep on the Borderlands being a very prime example of this. But, even then, you look at early modules, there's often a pretty strong element of "this is how you write adventures" theme running throughout.

I mean, good grief, what, twenty years (ish) of Dungeon Magazine straight up producing all sorts of advice on how to create adventures, plus Dragon magazine doing the same thing occasionally, it's not really a stretch to see the intentions of the game writers in the published adventures.

I've always wondered: what games do you enjoy playing? You know what I like.

Fair question. I'm not actually all that picky. I'll play just about anything. I would prefer if 5e D&D was a lot less dependent on spells and casters to be honest. But, I can say that I prefer simple, streamlined rules over complex ones, however, I do not prefer "rules absent" systems where the DM is expected to make ad hoc rulings all the time. It's largely why I don't play older versions of D&D anymore. Far, far too fiddly where they should be simple and nowhere near enough actual mechanics where there should be.

5e works well enough, for what I want. But, my point in these kinds of threads is highlighting the point that @Malmuria very clearly outlines. OSR games are a view of older versions of D&D that just never applied to me. The presumptions that people are talking about in these threads never happened at my tables. No, we didn't play for fifteen years and only gain six levels. All the way through 1e and 2e, campaigns lasted about 1-2 years and ended about 10th or 12th level by that time. And it was far closer to 18 months to hit name level. No, we didn't have meat grinders where characters were permanently dying every week. We might have a character death every 2 to 3 levels and that was about it. No, we didn't rewrite the treasure tables, so, everyone played longsword fighters. No, we didn't roll 3d6 in order. Like, ever.

So, most of the presumptions of play behind the OSR leave me entirely cold. It's why I never really got into it. I've looked at it from time to time and just bounced right off again and again because the presumptions behind the mechanics are just so alien to my experience.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Honestly, I've never used published adventures for any system as anything other than material to be repurposed for homebrew campaigns. As a result, I just don't see them as indicative of how a game is meant to be played. Rather, the rulebook itself provides that guidance.

Much as I sometimes roll my eyes at some things, you also have to remember how heavily published adventures early on were influenced by convention game expectations, and that was probably even true with adventure-series cases. That's worlds from the way a lot of home games of any stripe were done.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Much as I sometimes roll my eyes at some things, you also have to remember how heavily published adventures early on were influenced by convention game expectations, and that was probably even true with adventure-series cases. That's worlds from the way a lot of home games of any stripe were done.

Another excellent reason not to treat them as gospel.

 

[kenada]

I don’t normally visit the 5e forum here, so I missed this thread since it wasn’t in the older edition forum. I’m probably late to the discussion, but I figured I’d add my 2¢.

Details that might also be interesting to know is your history with D&D and whether you played Old School when they were new, as well as what games you started with at whatever age in whatever era. I know we skew a little older here (I am a GenX Metzner Boxed said kid myself) but it isn't universally true with forum users I don't think.

I grew up in the ’80s but somehow missed D&D, so (outside of Baldur’s Gate) my first real D&D was 3e at the gaming club in college. The first few campaigns I played were hack and slash. There might have been some conceit (like one character was Snow White while the rest of us were the seven dwarves), but most of our time was spent killing monsters. Some of us split off into our own group from that group. A few people ran things. I also got to DM my first campaign, which is still remembered by players in my group twenty years later, but it was heavy-handed in ways I wouldn’t want to do now.

We eventually did other games for a while (a lot of Mage: the Awakening 1e, some Dogs in the Vineyard one-shots, a brief Unknown Armies campaign). Eventually, I ran 3.5e again for a bit before we switched to 4e when it came out. I ran 4e for a while before that group imploded due to some player issues, then I ran Pathfinder 1e. I started with APs (Council of Thieves, Kingmaker, Rise of the Runelords, Shattered Star), though Kingmaker is the only one we finished. After that, I started doing my own stuff and trying other systems (Dungeon World, Fate).

So, if you like that sort of old school sensibility in play, whether with the old rules or new rules, articulate what about it is fun for you.

I recall finding a retroclone back in college, but I don’t remember which one it was. I want to say Basic Fantasy, but I don’t think the timeline matches because I graduated back in 2006, and that’s when Wikipedia says it was first released. I never ran it though. A bit after that I discovered Grognardia, which I’d describe as very influential. I was disappointed when it stopped updating and very pleased when it started again a few years ago.

The thing that appeals to me is it seems my group likes to do exploration-oriented campaigns, and OSR games tend to have more mechanics for that kind of play out of the box. I ran Pathfinder 2e for a while, but I found myself trying to incorporate stuff from Old-School Essentials. When I burnt out on PF2, we attempted the switch. I think it worked better for me then my players. It was a bit too streamlined for their tastes. We switched to WWN, but I still used a lot of exploration stuff from OSE. I eventually created my homebrew system because neither really did what I wanted.

As a GM and referee, there are a few things about old-school rules that appeal to me:

• Exploration procedures (and focus). I want the game to do what I want out of the box. Games like B/X provide that.
• Smaller numbers. A couple of dice with no modifiers can be a meaningful amount of damage.
• Static difficulties. I don’t particularly like picking DCs. I’d rather these be relatively static, so PCs actually get better, and players can reason about their actions.
• Simple monsters. Most values are derived from HD (or level). Make it quick and simple for me to get the numbers I need. I want the system to take care of the tuning.
• Adventures. I particularly like Necrotic Gnome’s, but there are a bunch of good adventures focused on providing sites or situations. I’m not interested in running anything that’s too focused on a story anymore (like an AP).

There are some old-school things that don’t align with how I want to run my game. I’m not interested in the amount of prep it can require to do a sandbox properly, but I still want to run one. I don’t want to make rulings. There are other games (particularly PbtA and FitD games) that do do those things the way I want, so I’ve incorporated some of their ideas regarding rules and the referee’s relationship to them and play.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Another excellent reason not to treat them as gospel.

It gets more complicated over time, as that became less and less true, but one thing that's always been a struggle was to find published adventures that weren't pretty heavily on rails (for reasons that are, honestly, easy to understand).