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

[pemerton]

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.

"Old school" isn't trying to describe a period, though, so much as a genre that peaked during a certain period.

I'm quite aware that "epic" RPGing didn't begin with DL - seven years ago I started a thread discussing Lew Pulsipher's account of various playstyles back in the late 70s: DMing philosophy, from Lewis Pulsipher

But the DL tag is a handy way to both describe the style, and to point to the time when it really became the mainstream (which AD&D 2nd ed than rendered "official").

 

[pemerton]

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.

The criticism of Monty Haul play, as I read it (I'm thinking especially of Gygax's DMG), is that it cheapens or undercuts the point of the game.

I remember, decades ago now, joining a group of friends for a lunchtime game of five hundred, only to discover that they permitted players to look at what tricks had been played! Which negates the whole point of following the play and keeping the count in your memory. It's not as if these people were doing anything wrong, but it did make it hard for me to take their play seriously.

And I think the criticism of Monty Haul is in the same neighbourhood.

This is why Gygax is happy for players to start with higher level PCs if they have already had the experience of playing to those levels, and so wouldn't be getting an in-game advantage that they haven't "earned" via their actual skilful play.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

Kind of. But the differentiating points, mechanically, between 1E retroclones and 2E are pretty minimal, and many OSR games add simple skill systems, like 2E's.

Are there mechanical things from 2E that you would enjoy playing again, or is it more about vibes and aesthetic?

There's at least one major 2E-inflected retroclone out there, as far as I know, but it's by a terrible person* and I won't mention it to promote it. For aesthetics, I would probably suggest Castles & Crusades, although that's kind of its own thing.

* Worse than you are guessing.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

The "OSR characters die early and often" idea is more of a meme than a promise, especially if you're not doing a funnel*. The overall difficulty level is higher, yes, but once you get out of the habit of expecting high hit points and detailed character abilities to insulate you from mistakes, it's fine.

I ran Tomb of the Serpent Kings in Shadowdark over three sessions (my PCs combed nearly every inch of the place) and there are a number of deadly traps and two monsters that, if they ran in screaming to attack, they would 100% die, to the point it's almost not worth rolling dice. But early in the upper levels of the dungeon, they realized that A) this place could kill them if they were reckless and 2) the author (Skerples) was playing fair and a lot of this stuff was telegraphed in some fashion, so they quickly learned how to avoid 99% of danger.

About seven characters participated, as I recall, and I don't think any of them died, although there might have been a close call in the first session.

That said, you're not required to play OSR games, just like other people aren't required to play stuff they're not interested in. It's weird that the tone of this thread has become people trying to argue each other out of things they enjoy. Just go do your thing. Life's too short to do otherwise.

* I am not a fan of funnels. No one has kicked me out of the OSR club for this.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The real head scratcher is the OSR crowd who likes Critical Role.

I think mostly people who like actual plays like them as entertainment, first and foremost. It might be fun to know how the rules underpin what's going on, but other than for people just learning to play a game, I think most of the appeal of actual plays are the performers and the collective story they create.

I now only listen to actual plays by comedians, improv actors and regular actors (I apologize to all the normal people doing actual plays), because I don't need to learn the rules (although it's interesting to see how, say, Insight is used at different tables) and am listening to the performers as a show instead.

 

[pemerton]

It seems a strange distinction that people playing in 1982 is "old school" while 1989 is not.

As others, and I, have posted, "old school" is not referencing a particular time period, but a genre of play - a playstyle, if you prefer - that was advocated in some seminal texts (the original D&D rulebooks, Gygax's DMG and PHB, and Moldvay Basic being the most prominent ones), and is distinct from the sort of play that, post-DL, became mainstream.

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.

I don't quite get this. You have an edition - 5e D&D that is (i) the most successful version of D&D ever (as I understand it at least) and (ii) that cleans up your favoured rule set and fully enables the sort of play that AD&D 2nd ed aspired to,

As far as nostalgia is concerned, I see that as neither here nor there. I have a nostalgic fondness for AD&D - it's classes, weapon list, spells and magic items are very colourful, and were formative in my thinking about FRPGing - but no particular nostalgia for "old school" play, which I never really did myself (although I started playing D&D in 1982) and which I am not very good at as either player or GM.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I don't agree with this at all. OSR, at least as I see it (which is as an observer, not a participant) is about skilled play of the sort Gygax advocated in his PHB, but with a tighter system -often inspired by Moldvay's, which is tighter than Gygax's, but also drawing on the 40 subsequent years of technical developments in RPG design.

The notions of "purity" and "goodness" are not apposite. I mean, one might come across a snide remark here and there about DL and its aftermath, but those are peripheral, not essential, to the actual RPGing that the OSR is aiming at.

There is a reason, though, for a focus on a certain "sliver of time" - that's the time in which systems aimed at skilled play were published. So it makes sense, if one wishes to engage in that sort of play, to attend to those texts. You are not going to learn anything useful about skilled play by reading (just to pick some examples) anything with Dark Sun or Planescape on the cover.

 

[overgeeked]

The "OSR characters die early and often" idea is more of a meme than a promise, especially if you're not doing a funnel*. The overall difficulty level is higher, yes, but once you get out of the habit of expecting high hit points and detailed character abilities to insulate you from mistakes, it's fine.

A lot of it comes down to the assumptions we make going into a game. If you're a kid and just want to bash your way through all problems, you're going to have a high body count...like most of us did back-in-the-day. If you're used to modern games and video games where you can just bash your way through all problems, you're going to have a high body count...like many people coming from 5E to OSR games do. All it takes is not trying to bash your way though all problems, slowing down, thinking, and playing cautiously. Or at least more cautiously than normal.

That said, you're not required to play OSR games, just like other people aren't required to play stuff they're not interested in. It's weird that the tone of this thread has become people trying to argue each other out of things they enjoy. Just go do your thing. Life's too short to do otherwise.

That's the thing I keep getting hung up on. People hate-watching shows, people feeling the need to attack things they don't like. Why squander the fleeting hours of your life yelling at random strangers for liking something you don't. I will never understand that.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't agree with this at all. OSR, at least as I see it (which is as an observer, not a participant) is about skilled play of the sort Gygax advocated in his PHB, but with a tighter system -often inspired by Moldvay's, which is tighter than Gygax's, but also drawing on the 40 subsequent years of technical developments in RPG design.

Not to mention adventure design. The best OSR adventures run rings around even the best TSR adventures. That's not an attack on anyone at TSR -- they were figuring out all of this stuff on the fly, in public. But the best OSR adventures of today are so much better designed than anything that came out in the duo-tone module era of TSR (or earlier).

 

[Retreater]

There's at least one major 2E-inflected retroclone out there, as far as I know, but it's by a terrible person* and I won't mention it to promote it. For aesthetics, I would probably suggest Castles & Crusades, although that's kind of its own thing.

* Worse than you are guessing.

I am aware of "For Gold and Glory" as a 2E retroclone. I don't know anything about the designer. I did pick up a POD copy. Hope I didn't make a mistake.

I want to like C&C, but I'm not a fan of the SIEGE engine, adding levels to every check and getting very high numbers, plus the writing/design is just really sloppy. I have the main books, but I'm just not a fan.

Are there mechanical things from 2E that you would enjoy playing again, or is it more about vibes and aesthetic?

Psionics system
Specialty priests
Great settings that don't require mechanical translation to a new system
My favorite Monster Manual for any edition of any roleplaying game

But what I miss the absolute most about 2E is predictability. I can reasonably guess what damage the party can do to an enemy, without concerning myself with exploding dice from Savage Worlds, massive critical effects from Pathfinder 2e, bonus actions from 5E, etc. I can also understand healing and how much damage a party can withstand. There are too many factors, special powers, etc., for me to reasonably anticipate what a party can handle.

Ever since 3rd edition, I've become a Killer DM. I simply cannot plan for anything. It's all cakewalks until a TPK ends a campaign.

What I don't like about most other OSR games is the "dungeon" focus. OSE, Shadowdark, etc., all assume stuff like gold = XP, skimp over exploration rules, have monsters that have no place in a world ecology or information about how to use them in a setting - as if they're all designed for monster hotels. In 2E we rarely went to a dungeon, and even when we did, they were more like 5-room dungeons from modern design. It was cross-country, urban, open seas, wilderness survival, etc.