OSR Why B/X?

[Mannahnin]

Elements of 2e were more literary and folklore-based than 1e, so it felt even older than 1e, oD&D, etc.
Let's break it down.
The "green" books (Historical Reference Sourcebooks): Vikings, Charlemagne's Paladins, Celts, A Mighty Fortress, The Glory of Rome, Age of Heroes, and The Crusades. These brought real-world (albeit Eurocentric) myths, legends, and history that predate Appendix N writings by centuries. Other campaign settings are based on equally old sources, such as Al-Qadim's connection to Arabian Nights.
Look at the Ravenloft campaign setting and its literary (and film) inspirations. Here's a list of just a few off the top of my head. Dracula, Frankenstein, the Mummy, the Wolf-Man, Island of Dr. Moreau, Jack the Ripper, Hound of the Baskervilles, and Night of the Living Dead.
If anything, 2e's focusing on world building and drawing from real world history and mythology, makes it feel old (even older than D&D). It certainly has a place in the OSR.

2nd ed definitely had a focus on historical and literary references. Stuff of broader cultural relevance than the 1930s-1960s pulp short stories and novels in Appendix N which formed such a large part of OD&D and 1E's inspirational underpinning.

TSR post-Gygax clearly recognized that they weren't principally targeting old grognards who were steeped in Howard and Leiber stories, but rather younger folks who would know some history and mythology from school, and whose literary inspirations would be post-Tolkien epic fantasy.

If we're limiting "old school" D&D to be B/X, I must assume that is the 1981 Moldvay/Cook edition. Even that was supplanted in the publication history by BECMI, which started in 1983.

I don't think anyone's limiting "old school" to B/X. This particular thread happens to be primarily about why people like B/X, among the various old versions (though obviously it's wandered a bit over 10 pages)

Everything from 1974 OD&D up until more story-focused modules like Ravenloft and Dragonlance started taking over the place is definitely old school. Everything from that period until WotC took over is kind of debated over in old school circles. And like I said, as the OSR has gone on and gotten broader in focus and less dogmatic over the past 18 years or so, generally the trend has been more toward including everything in the TSR years as old school.

Neonchameleon was talking about how 2E was a post-Hickman Revolution product. Late in 1E there was a transition in what the primary play style promoted by TSR was. How the game was presented as meant to be played. What kind of fiction it was intended to emulate. Making gold for XP an optional rule and focusing XP on 1) Monsters killed, and 2) Goals achieved, was part of this refocus. Away from thieving "heroes" like Conan and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser and toward altruistic Heroes like the Fellowship of the Ring and the Companions/Heroes of the Lance. Starting in the 70s and continuing as a refrain through the 80s, there were a lot of players who preferred Heroic PCs and who were annoyed by gold for xp, because it was inconsistent with the tone of the stories they wanted to emulate and the heroes they wanted to play. And 2nd ed was the first edition to officially cater to that preference and center it in the rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

2nd ed definitely had a focus on historical and literary references. Stuff of broader cultural relevance than the 1930s-1960s pulp short stories and novels in Appendix N which formed such a large part of OD&D and 1E's inspirational underpinning.

TSR post-Gygax clearly recognized that they weren't principally targeting old grognards who were steeped in Howard and Leiber stories, but rather younger folks who would know some history and mythology from school, and whose literary inspirations would be post-Tolkien epic fantasy.



I don't think anyone's limiting "old school" to B/X. This particular thread happens to be primarily about why people like B/X, among the various old versions (though obviously it's wandered a bit over 10 pages)

Everything from 1974 OD&D up until more story-focused modules like Ravenloft and Dragonlance started taking over the place is definitely old school. Everything from that period until WotC took over is kind of debated over in old school circles. And like I said, as the OSR has gone on and gotten broader in focus and less dogmatic over the past 18 years or so, generally the trend has been more toward including everything in the TSR years as old school.

Neonchameleon was talking about how 2E was a post-Hickman Revolution product. Late in 1E there was a transition in what the primary play style promoted by TSR was. How the game was presented as meant to be played. What kind of fiction it was intended to emulate. Making gold for XP an optional rule and focusing XP on 1) Monsters killed, and 2) Goals achieved, was part of this refocus. Away from thieving "heroes" like Conan and Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser and toward altruistic Heroes like the Fellowship of the Ring and the Companions/Heroes of the Lance. Starting in the 70s and continuing as a refrain through the 80s, there were a lot of players who preferred Heroic PCs and who were annoyed by gold for xp, because it was inconsistent with the tone of the stories they wanted to emulate and the heroes they wanted to play. And 2nd ed was the first edition to officially cater to that preference and center it in the rules.

I'm good with anything from the pre-WotC days being considered old school, even though my preferred playstyle predates the Hickman Revolution. There's just so much great material in the 2e era to draw from, with very few compatability issues, as opposed to when WotC took over and entirely new games started being produced under the same brand.

 

[Yora]

I've recently come to think that there are actually three distinct stylistic phases and not just two:
Oldschool (1974-1983)
Post-Dragonlance (1984-2002)
Post-Eberron (2003-present)

Eberron in itself is a cool setting, but I feel it became the default reference template for what kind of fantasy D&D and Pathfinder are. Which to me is most distinguished by dropping any references to medieval culture and making it magitech 21st century instead.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I've recently come to think that there are actually three distinct stylistic phases and not just two:
Oldschool (1974-1983)
Post-Dragonlance (1984-2002)
Post-Eberron (2003-present)

Eberron in itself is a cool setting, but I feel it became the default reference template for what kind of fantasy D&D and Pathfinder are. Which to me is most distinguished by dropping any references to medieval culture and making it magitech 21st century instead.

Old-school, trad, neo-trad.

 

[Reynard]

I've recently come to think that there are actually three distinct stylistic phases and not just two:
Oldschool (1974-1983)
Post-Dragonlance (1984-2002)
Post-Eberron (2003-present)

Eberron in itself is a cool setting, but I feel it became the default reference template for what kind of fantasy D&D and Pathfinder are. Which to me is most distinguished by dropping any references to medieval culture and making it magitech 21st century instead.

I like this breakdown. You can see the "Eberron effect" in things like Vox Machina. Personally I think it is generally a good thing, buy I do sometimes miss embracing the medieval setting.

 

[Parmandur]

I like this breakdown. You can see the "Eberron effect" in things like Vox Machina. Personally I think it is generally a good thing, buy I do sometimes miss embracing the medieval setting.

So, my perspective is, first, someone who got into D&D post-Eberron and, second, focused on Medieval Studies in College. Having gone back and read a lot of older D&D material, it doesn't seem to be appreciably more Medeival than current D&D, it just plugged into equally anachronistic stereotypes that were a bit out-of-date I'm the 70's and it's even.

 

[Yora]

It mostly is about the art direction for illustrations.

 

[Reynard]

So, my perspective is, first, someone who got into D&D post-Eberron and, second, focused on Medieval Studies in College. Having gone back and read a lot of older D&D material, it doesn't seem to be appreciably more Medeival than current D&D, it just plugged into equally anachronistic stereotypes that were a bit out-of-date I'm the 70's and it's even.

Pop medieval, then. There's still a distinct shift.

 

[Parmandur]

Pop medieval, then. There's still a distinct shift.

The shift is in pop Medeival, not in D&D. Older D&D is working off 1950's pop Medeival, current D&D is working off of 21st century pop Medeival.

 

[TwoSix]

I've recently come to think that there are actually three distinct stylistic phases and not just two:
Oldschool (1974-1983)
Post-Dragonlance (1984-2002)
Post-Eberron (2003-present)

Eberron in itself is a cool setting, but I feel it became the default reference template for what kind of fantasy D&D and Pathfinder are. Which to me is most distinguished by dropping any references to medieval culture and making it magitech 21st century instead.

The only point I would add to this is that I don't think Eberron caused these changes; it merely codified trends that had already been brewing in the late '90s and early '00s in a mainstream D&D product.

This is speculation, but I imagine a root cause of the popularization of the magitech trope was the maturation of the generation weaned on JRPGs, most especially Final Fantasy VII.