Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9541903" data-attributes="member: 7635">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. 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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification