Earlier there was a comment about “Everything grognards hate is good for new gamers.” Impudent comment aside, it got me thinking. Back in the early 80s, the game had a meteoric growth rate, so it seems that the old school style of play (being current at the time) did very well in bringing in new players. Now, 5e seems to also be doing a great job bringing in new players.
Has our community changed that much that not only is there no room in modern gaming for the OSR to bring in new gamers, but it’s actively harmful to bringing them in as that comment implies?
On one hand, I think there are elements of OSR games which might not have aged well as originally presented, but on the other, I still believe a game like B/X could be an excellent tool to being in new players. We seem to think that only the most recent edition should be used to bring in new gamers, and I don’t think I subscribe to that.
Thoughts?
I think OSR has plenty to offer new players. It’s at once reactionary to the perceived wisdoms du jour, performing an exegesis on classical era d&d (what elements worked well and why) as well as progressive in areas of design, mechanics and production. It returns back to a core base before exploring paths not taken. It can be staid, or vibrant and dynamic, it has a strong creative scene that push, explore and innovate (one page dungeons, developments on itch.io, aesthetic choices like mork Borg).
Ive seen more creativity, abundant adventure and a dare to be different in some 20 page single level modules than I’ve seen in entire 256 page levels 1-15 hardbacks from wotc, due to being unshackled from having to play it safe and be commercially viable.
I‘ve seen a few comments that suggest that elements of OSR gaming are unwelcoming to specific communities, or that it’s a desire to return to the “good old days” when such exclusion was fine. At best, I find these comments disingenuous.
Yes, there are some absolute clowns in the OSR community. But there are also absolute clowns in the 5e community, pathfinder community etc. I’d like to see some examples of products that are specifically unwelcoming (from the smaller companies, not just what a fringe nut job has made and self published).
I have seen representation brought up (or lack thereof). To contextualise this, I am a gay man. In society, representation matters. I went to school in the uk before section 28 was repealed (essentially it banned any information on homosexuality within schools). The silence was deafening. I had no information, idea reference point or anything to point towards to help me. Contrast that to now, where I am a teacher and there is fiction with gay characters in, something so that one kid might feel seen, is a positive change. I’ve also taught in a heavily mixed ethnicity inner city school and led as the school’s diversity champion. I get it.
If a setting in a ttrpg is attempting to evoke a specific milieu, I am not dissuaded from the game because I am not represented. I am not there to be represented, to force myself into this setting. I am there to roleplay. To play some one else. To be anyone else. In my opinion, I think OSR games are like that because power fantasy is not the focus. I am not there to play myself, but super buff and with a sword to solve my problems. I am there to play someone else, in this world, in this setting.
To say this is a return to the good old days of being racist and all white european settings is also uncharitable. There are many examples of classic TSR products that had non white locales and characters (I’m not going to pretend there was enough, there’s definitely room for improvement, just pointing out that they did exist). In fact, to briefly touch and pass on the hot potato of the original Oriental Adventures (for I’m not going to discuss my opinion on it, I totally respect that everyone has one on it and all feelings are valid), the recent conversations around it seem to miss that in the credits, it had Asian sensitivity readers (before sensitivity readers were a thing no less).
I have not once seen a rule set or a system turn anyone away, be unwelcoming*. I have seen groups of people do that. Whether the system is OSR or a system that professes to be super inclusive. It is the people.
*women I think do have a strong case, classic fantasy literature unfortunately did have a lot of scantily clad women in peril which then manifested in the art work. That should most definitely be avoided these days unless you are specifically evoking a cheese and beefcake pastiche (in which case everyone knows what they are signing up for). The counter point to this is that you had buff men in loin cloths too, my counter point to this is that still doesn’t work as equality. Men don’t really care. Chances are they will be happy to walk around with no pants on!
I think, in terms of attracting new players, the OSR‘ strength, its diversity of creative outlets, is also its weakness. There’s no clear single entry point. OSR itself defies an agreed upon definition.
Where it can definitely succeed is in picking up “newish” players. Those that come to ttrpgs through 5e and find it’s just not for them, or are keen to explore something new. The current edition of D&D is always the sieve. Other systems are the small bowls beneath, catching the granules that fall beneath. The biggest opportunities for tempting these players are usually during an edition change. There, the players face a choice: do we stay? Do we upgrade? Do we try something else seeing as we are looking into making a switch anyway?