OSR Differential Characteristics of OSR/TSR D&D versus WotC/Paizo D&D

[DammitVictor]

I think you can differentiate races without class restrictions. You just have to not be worried about complete balance. IMO, a halfling or even a dwarf should never be able to get an 18 strength (max for humans in my games) without magic.

I don't feel like that's enough differentation for my tastes. Nonhuman PCs should still be relatable, and similar to Human PCs, but I feel like it should be different experience-- much the way that different classes offer very different play experiences, which is why I always find myself returning to race-as-class.

Which is a lot less restrictive if there's more than one racial class per race, and/or racial subclasses, and/or nonhumans are allowed to multiclass in some "human" classes.

 

[atanakar]

I don't feel like that's enough differentation for my tastes. Nonhuman PCs should still be relatable, and similar to Human PCs, but I feel like it should be different experience-- much the way that different classes offer very different play experiences, which is why I always find myself returning to race-as-class.

Which is a lot less restrictive if there's more than one racial class per race, and/or racial subclasses, and/or nonhumans are allowed to multiclass in some "human" classes.

Fantasy AGE by Green Ronin uses tables for Races. At creation you roll twice on the Race Benefits table, on top of the standard racial abilities. I really like that. Makes every dwarf different. BTW their Basic book is free to download these days. You might want to give it a look. It is a short read.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, it certainly explains their antipathy toward Skills & Powers.

Well, that and the fact that S&P came out in the mid-90s, the time period that was the heart of the story-play/meta-narrative era. S&P is kind of a signifier of the excesses that both the OSR and Forge-type narrative games were explicit responses to.

That being said, I'd love a clone of S&P era 2E with some 21st century D&D mechanics included.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't feel like that's enough differentation for my tastes. Nonhuman PCs should still be relatable, and similar to Human PCs, but I feel like it should be different experience-- much the way that different classes offer very different play experiences, which is why I always find myself returning to race-as-class.

Which is a lot less restrictive if there's more than one racial class per race, and/or racial subclasses, and/or nonhumans are allowed to multiclass in some "human" classes.

Make some racial classes with some of the point-buy options from base classes plus some class-specific racially flavored options.

 

[Prakriti]

One of the defining characteristics of old-school D&D to me is sprawl. With each new edition or supplement, the game only got more bloated, more unwieldy, and more complex. As soon as TSR/WotC started to simplify and streamline the game (which they first started to do in 2E, but definitely took it to the next level with 3E), then a fundamental characteristic of the game had changed, and it was no longer "old-school."

 

[dave2008]

I don't feel like that's enough differentation for my tastes. Nonhuman PCs should still be relatable, and similar to Human PCs, but I feel like it should be different experience-- much the way that different classes offer very different play experiences, which is why I always find myself returning to race-as-class.

Which is a lot less restrictive if there's more than one racial class per race, and/or racial subclasses, and/or nonhumans are allowed to multiclass in some "human" classes.

Well, with my approach the difference can be as large or as small as you want. You clipped the part where I said: "Personally, unique traits and ability scores is enough differentiation for me."

The ability scores are a part, the other is the unique traits. The "unique traits" is were you make them more flavorful and interesting. You could even go the PF2e route and have racial feats that you can select from at certain levels. That seems like a better method to make unique races than having to make an elf, dwarf, halfling, orc, etc. version of each class. At least it does to me.

 

[Lanefan]

D&D B/X(BECMI) and AD&D are two separate games to me despite the similarities.

AD&D is Gygax's continuation of OD&D, while Basic goes off on a tangent with Race-as-Class. BECMI introduced a lot more race-as-class character classes in other books. Elf-druids, etc. If the Rules Cyclopedia visual presentation wasn't so garish I would like to read it some day. But I just can't.

If you design an OSR game you have to choose either OD&D (AD&D) or Basic as reference.

I'm not sure it's quite as cut-and-dried as that.

People were happily mashing together Basic, B/X, and 1e back in 1980 without much concern. No reason one couldn't do this now, and use the result as a basis for an OSR system.

 

[Shiroiken]

Honestly, to me old school and modern are much less about the mechanics, than about the way the game is ran/played. IMO, modern games focus heavily on mechanics and character ability, using dice to resolve most tasks, while old school games focus heavily on player choices and abilities, using dice only when necessary. I generally run an old school type game in 5E, having made some houserules to help bring about the feel. I've also played in a 2E game (after we quit 4E) which was ran in a very modern fashion. The edition didn't make the difference, it was the style of the DM and players that set the tone.

 

[Lanefan]

I think you can differentiate races without class restrictions. You just have to not be worried about complete balance. IMO, a halfling or even a dwarf should never be able to get an 18 strength (max for humans in my games) without magic. And a goliath, minotaur and dragonkin can get to 20. Personally, unique traits and ability scores is enough differentiation for me.
We are moving away from increasing ability scores and ASIs in our 5e games. Using feats only (some feats include an ability bump)

I've slowly over the years got rid of most - but not all - race-class restrictions in my game; but there's still no arcane-casting Dwarves, Hobbit Rangers, or a few other things that just don't make sense.

Having seen a few rather broken race-class combinations arise in my current campaign, I think the next one is going to put a few more restrictions back in.

And I'll argue with you about Dwarf Strength: IMO they should be able to get to one notch better than Humans. Hobbits, on the other hand, cap out at 16.

Side note: one other aspect we tweaked is for Fighter exceptional strength (i.e. the 18.xx system for Humans) is that your race determines how far above your normal racial max you can go. We also split out the percent gradients into whole numbers this 18.41 = 19 up to 18.00 = 24, with normal Hill Giants now being 25 (this to make the Cavalier-style percentile increment system work properly). Yes this means Strength kinda works differently than the other five stats, but so be it.

So, a Hobbit normally caps out at 16 and exceptional strength can take it only to 18.41 (19 in our system). Dwarves normally cap out at 19 in our system, exceptional strength can take 'em to 25.

 

[Aldarc]

I probably prefer the new wave OSR that adopts the philosophy of old school games, but provides a far more modern experience, streamlined design, and less Gygaxian prose.

Honestly, to me old school and modern are much less about the mechanics, than about the way the game is ran/played. IMO, modern games focus heavily on mechanics and character ability, using dice to resolve most tasks, while old school games focus heavily on player choices and abilities, using dice only when necessary.

To use my favorite German expression: "Jein." It may be more accurate to say that a lot of modern mainstream "games focus heavily on mechanics and character ability, using dice to resolve most tasks." OSR does operate as you describe, but you also find this attitude in a lot of narrative-focused games. This comes from the influential Vincent Baker's "say yes or roll the dice" attitude that pops up in a lot of PbtA, Fate, and Cortex style games. Mainly the idea that the GM should say "yes" to what the players are doing unless their are stakes in play, then at which point dice should be rolled. In PbtA (and BitD) dice are rolled less about the resolution of action and more about the dramatic consequences of actions. Similarly the rules of Fate say that dice should only be rolled when there are interesting positive and negative consequences of an action.