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

[Remathilis]

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).

I just find it ironic my game supports your style, but yours doesn't support mine.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I just find it ironic my game supports your style, but yours doesn't support mine.

I see nothing wrong with that, but fair enough. I don't think every games needs to support every playstyle, and sometimes a game makes compromises to try that I don't want.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

Fair enough. I don’t treat 5e and 1e/2e as the same game but that’s not for reasons that others call things “old school” which I’m increasingly realizing is not a term I like.

 

[Retreater]

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 It's the rejection of modernity that is the key element: 2e is just 5e with outdated rules.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 find my experience with 2e much different than mine in 5e. Of course, age and adult responsibilities may play a big part.
Let's look at the differences between a 2e thief (my regular class) vs the 5e rogue (my wife's preferred class).
2e thief was an explorer, a sneak, a puzzle and problem solver, a scout. 5e rogue gets into flank and provides DPS.
Magic was rare and limited in 2e, infinite and ubiquitous in 5e.
Slower rates of healing in 2e made the impact of encounters potentially last into the next day. Thus, encounters were more meaningful mechanically. In 5e, all fights need to be artisinally balanced or they're worthless.

 

[Aldarc]

I mean, any organized play where you don't have a consistent group of players and DMs creates similar experiences, but it's more an emotional connection I'm speaking about. I don't get warm memories of Col Mustard. I don't write backstory for the Scottie Dog. Why invest in a character who is equally as disposable?

I have played D&D in the WotC era that OSR defines itself partially against. I have written backstories for my characters that went absolutely nowhere in these games because neither the adventure nor the GM cares. My character's goals didn't simply matter in the slightest. I generally don't do that anymore. Why should I invest that time into creating my character's backstory and goals if none of that matters to most games of 5e D&D that are played?

If I want my character's backstory to matter, then I will probably play either a "Narrative/Story/Drama" game or a game that leans more heavily into Neo-Trad. If I want my character's goals to matter, I am probably more likely to play a "Narrative/Story/Drama" or OSR game, as I will likely have more freedom to pursue goals for my character.

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.

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.

The original sense of "old school" was TSR D&D: i.e., the people who wanted to keep playing the games of D&D they were playing before 3e D&D. However, that shifted when the emerging OSR and Indie Story game scene kind of reacted against the prevailing "Trad games," such as VtM and post-DL D&D, namely a similar desire to resist pre-authored GM story.

The emerging OSR community was also taking notes from the discussion on The Forge, namely taking the principles of "system matters" to critically inspect these TSR games. B/X kind of emerged as the gold standard for OSR, and the Hickman Revolution was seen as a useful turning point and something to define itself against. It's like asking when Modernity, the Renaissance, or the Middle Ages began. OSR is definitely revisionist about D&D's history, but I think that is okay. What is more important than the fictive past is the creative present of OSR. That, IMHO, is where the fun is happening.

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.

I just find it ironic my game supports your style, but yours doesn't support mine.

Let's be clear, you are complaining that your character who you invested time in creating a backstory could die easily in an OSR game and therefore conclude from this that your preferred style is not supported by OSR. That doesn't strike me as either a sincere or logical argument.

You obviously can come to the table with a PC with a fleshed-out backstory, though some OSR games may want you to first roll that character up. The fact that your character can die more easily in OSR doesn't logically mean that the game doesn't support creating PC backstories. Does the fact that starting PCs in 4e D&D are much sturdier than in 5e D&D also mean that 5e D&D doesn't support creating PC backstories as much as 4e D&D does?

That said, there is a reason why you may want to invest time into creating a backstory for a character in an OSR game: it provides an emotional incentive to play your character in a smart way. For example, your approach and priorities in how you play Diablo shift when you make a "Hardcore" character whose death spells the end of that character.

If you want death mostly off the table and your character's backstory to matter, then I recommend playing something like the ENnie-winning game Fabula Ultima. You will have a lot more starting HP. Multiclassing to build-your-character from class packages is part of the game. Your traits and bonds will matter. Per the rules of the game, your character can't die unless it meets several criteria.

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.

This conversation would likely be more fruitful if you stopped maligning the motives of people who like OSR. Otherwise there is a sense that you aren't really going into this conversation with any good faith. A lot of your posts in this thread read mostly like bitter cynicism and potshots about OSR.

I don't necessarily think that it's necessarily about rejecting modernity for all or most, though I will certainly agree that there are some who hold such views. I think that for many people it's simply about finding, creating, and playing games that they find to be fun. Or do you believe that Bob World Builder is a sort of "reject modernity" sort of fellow? And yet, he has been mostly having fun playing OSR (and adjacent) games like DCC, Cairn, and Shadowdark. Is Kelsey Dionne a "reject modernity" sort of woman? The narrative that you are trying to sell about OSR here doesn't pass a basic sniff test.

Also, keep in mind, particularly with the bold, is that it was Tracy Hickman who was scandalized for posting "reject modernity, embrace tradition" with a picture of Dragonlance and a line-up of characters from Critical Role. He later took it down and apologized, but it was not a good look.

Spoiler

 

[Remathilis]

I find my experience with 2e much different than mine in 5e. Of course, age and adult responsibilities may play a big part.
Let's look at the differences between a 2e thief (my regular class) vs the 5e rogue (my wife's preferred class).
2e thief was an explorer, a sneak, a puzzle and problem solver, a scout. 5e rogue gets into flank and provides DPS.
Magic was rare and limited in 2e, infinite and ubiquitous in 5e.
Slower rates of healing in 2e made the impact of encounters potentially last into the next day. Thus, encounters were more meaningful mechanically. In 5e, all fights need to be artisinally balanced or they're worthless.

I say this because while the rules have changed, the style of play 5e tries is related to the one 2e first pioneered. 2e ushered in the era of play that was story first, heroic, epic and built around collaborative storytelling. The problem was the rules were still built for that OS style of live fast, die young and leave a good looking corpse. What you see is an evolution though starting in 2e towards having rules that favor that latter playstyle.

 

[Minigiant]

Fair enough. I don’t treat 5e and 1e/2e as the same game but that’s not for reasons that others call things “old school” which I’m increasingly realizing is not a term I like.

I can only compare base systems or fully fleshed out play styles.

Anything has too many variables.

 

[Remathilis]

B/X kind of emerged as the gold standard for OSR, and the Hickman Revolution was seen as a useful turning point and something to define itself against. It's like asking when Modernity, the Renaissance, or the Middle Ages began. OSR is definitely revisionist about D&D's history

I'm glad we agree on this. OSR is based on the myth of how D&D should have been played based on what people think the rules said rather than how it actually was.

Let's be clear, you are complaining that your character who you invested time in creating a backstory could die easily in an OSR game and therefore conclude from this that your preferred style is not supported by OSR. That doesn't strike me as either a sincere or logical argument.

The OSR movement has three important components to it:
1.) An attempt to capture the rules-light, DM rulings-based style of play that was the norm in early TSR D&D. This is a reaction to the how D&D has become increasingly rules heavy and tightly integrated (with waxing and waning) in subsequent edtions.
2.) An attempt to create the style of play where "smart play" is the only way to contend with the fragility and asymmetrical design. This is a reaction to how D&D has given players far more consistent abilities and balanced encounters.
3.) An attempt to return to the story-light style of dungeon-crawling and exploration that had lacks any attempt of DM narrative and instead focuses only on emergent story (that which only exists to narrate what has happened rather than tell an actual narrative). This is a reaction to adventure paths, metaplots, and the Hickman Revolution.

I am completely fine with 1. I am a fan of lighter rules. I am ambivalent on 2. I understand a certain amount of that is inevitable when making the game rules lighter, but I do not find the notion of a game where regular death is to be expected to be exciting. I overwhelming reject 3 because to me that loses the fundamental notion of role-playing. And 3, combined with 2, leads me to look askance at the OSR movement.

Where is the system that marries the rules light design of B/X with the narrative focus of 2e and later? The one who stll assumes certain balancing of encounters to and hardens PCs enough to make death less of a certainty? The one who innovates on OS rather than attempts to recreate 1977?

That's the OS game I want.

I don't necessarily think that it's necessarily about rejecting modernity for all or most, though I will certainly agree that there are some who hold such views. I think that for many people it's simply about finding, creating, and playing games that they find to be fun. Or do you believe that Bob World Builder is a sort of "reject modernity" sort of fellow? And yet, he has been mostly having fun playing OSR (and adjacent) games like DCC, Cairn, and Shadowdark. Is Kelsey Dionne a "reject modernity" sort of woman? The narrative that you are trying to sell about OSR here doesn't pass a basic sniff test.

Honestly? Yes.

Reject Modernity is a key aspect to the retro game movement for all the reasons I outlined above. Its a rejection of the modern idea games should be mechanically dense, rules should cover most situations, combat should be fair, death should be uncommon, and story is paramount. It's a rejection of D&D 3e, of Pathfinder, of 5e and all its spinoffs, and even to a degree 2nd edition. Its looking at Pathfinder 2e of D&D 24 as emphasizing what went wrong in gaming. That APs and crunchy splat books has caused gaming to lose its way. And its an attempt to recapture some mythical pure style of play that supposedly existed before most of those people ever touched a d20. Its trying to recreate the past not as it was but as it should have been.

Hickman's problem is that he's attacking the wrong target. The Heroes of the Lance walked so that Critcal Role could run. He is the great grandfather of Mercer, not his opposite. The "embrace tradition" of his picture shouldn't have been Dragonlance, its Keep on the Borderlands.

 

[TiQuinn]

The emerging OSR community was also taking notes from the discussion on The Forge, namely taking the principles of "system matters" to critically inspect these TSR games. B/X kind of emerged as the gold standard for OSR, and the Hickman Revolution was seen as a useful turning point and something to define itself against. It's like asking when Modernity, the Renaissance, or the Middle Ages began. OSR is definitely revisionist about D&D's history, but I think that is okay. What is more important than the fictive past is the creative present of OSR. That, IMHO, is where the fun is happening.

There are times I get very excited hearing about OSR games but oftentimes even the creators of these games slip into the language of “deadliness” or negative comparisons to 5e and it takes me out of the headspace wherein I would want to play the game.

 

[overgeeked]

Also, keep in mind, particularly with the bold, is that it was Tracy Hickman who was scandalized for posting "reject modernity, embrace tradition" with a picture of Dragonlance and a line-up of characters from Critical Role. He later took it down and apologized, but it was not a good look.

The real head scratcher is the OSR crowd who likes Critical Role. Like me and mine. I vastly prefer OSR-style play with either actual old-school games or OSR games. But I watch CR live every week. My brother, who’s even more into OSR stuff than me, is the one who got me into CR.

That’s a long way of saying: people aren’t monolithic, they can have a wide range of seemingly contradictory tastes. Stop trying to put people in neat little boxes. We don’t fit unless you saw off several bits.