D&D General 5e D&D to OSR pipeline or circle?

[TiQuinn]

What you're describing here is not "old school" play. It's completely standard post-DL play, which AD&D 2nd ed consolidated as the norm. You yourself seemed to recognise these points when you started this thread: TSR - How Did I Survive AD&D? Fudging and Railroads, Apparently

This is where I get off the boat about what is or is not “old school” play. It’s ultimately such an unhelpful term, really. It presupposes that no one attempted to play epic campaigns before the advent of DL, and from my experience, that’s pretty much false. It wouldn’t be so bad if it was simply talking about the modules published themselves, but “old school” always gets applied as if different playstyles themselves didn’t exist and there’s always that tone of superiority in the phrase itself.

If D&D was always a game where individual tables applied their own house rules to the game, then there were always tables that tweaked the rules to ensure that no one was dying right from the get go, and increasing the survivablity of characters for purposes of having an epic campaign.

 

[Minigiant]

This is where I get off the boat about what is or is not “old school” play. It’s ultimately such an unhelpful term, really. It presupposes that no one attempted to play epic campaigns before the advent of DL, and from my experience, that’s pretty much false. It wouldn’t be so bad if it was simply talking about the modules published themselves, but “old school” always gets applied as if different playstyles themselves didn’t exist and there’s always that tone of superiority in the phrase itself.

If D&D was always a game where individual tables applied their own house rules to the game, then there were always tables that tweaked the rules to ensure that no one was dying right from the get go, and increasing the survivablity of characters for purposes of having an epic campaign.

What many don't get is old school, new school, and modern D&D get their description and style is the starting point.

Each table can change or add rules. But there is only so much rules you can change from the starting point before you aren't in the same ruleset.

Moving old school play to the point where both PCs and NPCs are epic, mythic, or heroic like 3e, 4e, or 5e requires so many rules that to leave old school. Simply changing the death rules doesn't do it and that's all many tables did.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The OSR folks say that by discovering your character during play you get an attachment for them as you see them overcome odds and grow into a more seasoned adventurer that showing up with a backstory and arc in your head can’t match. It’s a different perspective for sure!

To give an example using Dolmenwood again: you have a ton of random tables for each kindred (its spin on ye old race), which give you backgrounds (jobs, really), trinkets, desires, demeanors, beliefs, all sorts of stuff that you can grab and start portraying a compelling character right away - and then see where that leads.

Yup. I see no reason why a character who discovers themselves and what they want over the course of the campaign generates less attachment to them than having a story for them in mind prior to even sitting down to play. Both methods are valid PC choices.

 

[TiQuinn]

What many don't get is old school, new school, and modern D&D get their description and style is the starting point.

Each table can change or add rules. But there is only so much rules you can change from the starting point before you aren't in the same ruleset.

Moving old school play to the point where both PCs and NPCs are epic, mythic, or heroic like 3e, 4e, or 5e requires so many rules that to leave old school. Simply changing the death rules doesn't do it and that's all many tables did.

I don’t agree. For example, D&D designers used to be so concerned about Monty Haul campaigns, which was a concern only because there were actually tables playing that way. But was it wrong? Was it bad? I think fears of Monty Haul were vastly overstated. Magic items were the ways characters differentiated themselves in those earlier versions of the games. One fighter had Boots of Striding and Springing and a Rapier of Wounding while another fighter had a Belt of Hill Giant Strength and a Dwarven Thrower. They yield two different play styles for the same class in a system where the difference between a level 3 fighter and a level 8 fighter was primarily just a matter of HPs.

 

[Retreater]

What you're describing here is not "old school" play. It's completely standard post-DL play, which AD&D 2nd ed consolidated as the norm. You yourself seemed to recognise these points when you started this thread: TSR - How Did I Survive AD&D? Fudging and Railroads, Apparently

It seems a strange distinction that people playing in 1982 is "old school" while 1989 is not. I'm curious if those of us who started in the 2e era are just a lost generation.
We're expected to have nostalgia for a game that existed before we ever rolled dice or move on to the latest version.

 

[Remathilis]

Yup. I see no reason why a character who discovers themselves and what they want over the course of the campaign generates less attachment to them than having a story for them in mind prior to even sitting down to play. Both methods are valid PC choices.

Here is my issue. You can come to my 5e game with a fully fleshed out character complete with backstory and accompanying mini OR you can come with a blank character sheet and create your character tabula rasa and find them though play and both are equally viable at my table. Both our styles of play are supported. But if I go to your OSR game with a fully fleshed out character, there is good odds he is just going to die quickly and I'm making a new one, why invest the time? My preferred style of play is not supported, yours is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here is my issue. You can come to my 5e game with a fully fleshed out character complete with backstory and accompanying mini OR you can come with a blank character sheet and create your character tabula rasa and find them though play and both are equally viable at my table. Both our styles of play are supported. But if I go to your OSR game with a fully fleshed out character, there is good odds he is just going to die quickly and I'm making a new one, why invest the time? My preferred style of play is not supported, yours is.

Characters in OSR games tend to be more fragile. If that makes the game not fun for you (and clearly it does), than OSR games are probably not your jam. Not every RPG is a good fit for every gamer.

I see no larger point here than the personal (on either side).

 

[Minigiant]

I don’t agree. For example, D&D designers used to be so concerned about Monty Haul campaigns, which was a concern only because there were actually tables playing that way. But was it wrong? Was it bad? I think fears of Monty Haul were vastly overstated. Magic items were the ways characters differentiated themselves in those earlier versions of the games. One fighter had Boots of Striding and Springing and a Rapier of Wounding while another fighter had a Belt of Hill Giant Strength and a Dwarven Thrower. They yield two different play styles for the same class in a system where the difference between a level 3 fighter and a level 8 fighter was primarily just a matter of HPs.

But that's my point

The base system was the same.
The tables changed Playstyles with their add-ons.

The 5e base rules and free rules are too much for OSR.

 

[Remathilis]

It seems a strange distinction that people playing in 1982 is "old school" while 1989 is not. I'm curious if those of us who started in the 2e era are just a lost generation.
We're expected to have nostalgia for a game that existed before we ever rolled dice or move on to the latest version.

Part of it is a longing for a Golden Era that did not exist (or didn't exist the way people think it did). It's the rejection of modernity that is the key element: 2e is just 5e with outdated rules. But that older, mythical style of play that was lost and forgotten but now has been returned. A return to when things were Pure and Good. A desire to recapture what was lost. Which is why it focuses on such a narrow sliver of time between when the game stopped being a Chainmail expansion and when the notion of story-driven play became the norm.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It seems a strange distinction that people playing in 1982 is "old school" while 1989 is not. I'm curious if those of us who started in the 2e era are just a lost generation.
We're expected to have nostalgia for a game that existed before we ever rolled dice or move on to the latest version.

You're like the Gen X of gamers. Boomers are OD&D and 1e, Gen X are 2e, and so one. In that context, it makes perfect sense lol. As a real life Gen Xer but D&D Boomer, you'd think I have sympathy and empathy for those who started in 2e then. I should reflect on that...