OSR Is there room in modern gaming for the OSR to bring in new gamers?

Zardnaar

Legend
This is inaccurate, yes Dragonborn come from late 3.x, but they aren't renamed Half-dragons. They come from a semi-obscure supplement called Races of the Dragon. There they are called "Dragonborn of Bahamut", but instead of a true breeding race, they are part of the trans-human races that were popular with designers by then. (They were humans who made a ritual to Bahamut and became draconic as a result)

Maybe in concept. Humanoid dragons and half dragons relate 3.0 2E had them.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

theCourier

Adventurer
There absolutely is enough room for it in modern gaming. Just like there's room for non-D&D RPGs (of which there are so many!)

I started with 4e, then moved to 5e, bounced hard off of that, and while I still enjoy the OSR I've settled into the nice little home of DCC RPG while still looking into other RPGs (particularly ones that speak to other media interests, like Animon Story).
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
This is inaccurate, yes Dragonborn come from late 3.x, but they aren't renamed Half-dragons. They come from a semi-obscure supplement called Races of the Dragon. There they are called "Dragonborn of Bahamut", but instead of a true breeding race, they are part of the trans-human races that were popular with designers by then. (They were humans who made a ritual to Bahamut and became draconic as a result)
Heck, if you go with dragon men created from ritual, then you’ve got to include draconians from the early 80s. Between them and saurials from Azure Bonds, I think the inspiration for playing a dragon humanoid has been there for a long time.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
This is inaccurate, yes Dragonborn come from late 3.x, but they aren't renamed Half-dragons. They come from a semi-obscure supplement called Races of the Dragon. There they are called "Dragonborn of Bahamut", but instead of a true breeding race, they are part of the trans-human races that were popular with designers by then. (They were humans who made a ritual to Bahamut and became draconic as a result)
It cashed out as effectively a level+0 template which could be applied to any non-evil creature with at least Int 3. Which means that a lot of things we think of as "animals" (technically, in 3.X terms, "magical beasts") actually qualify for such a transformation!

But yes, the "Dragonborn of Bahamut" (and their cousins, the "Dragonspawn of Tiamat") were transformed people, rather than a species in their own right, with the art showing examples from (implicitly) human, dwarven, gnomish, elven, orcish (or maybe goliath?), and possibly other origin species. Though they tried to go for a very uniform head-shape in most of the art, the first proper image (not counting the section-opening sketch thing) looks much more similar to how 4e dragonborn ended up.

Heck, if you go with dragon men created from ritual, then you’ve got to include draconians from the early 80s. Between them and saurials from Azure Bonds, I think the inspiration for playing a dragon humanoid has been there for a long time.
We can go back much further, even. The Spartoi--literally "sown ones"--were powerful warriors arising from ritually sowing dragon's teeth, which shows up in two different myths, one about Kadmos, the other about Jason's quest for the Golden Fleece. With the former, the teeth came from the Ismenian dragon, which was apparently one of Ares' sons; five of the Spartoi survived and went on to found Thebes, while Kadmus and his wife were vengefully transformed into serpents themselves by Ares. "Drakaina," literally just the female form of the Greek word drakon, were known to be powerful sorceresses, some of whom mated with heroes to found dynasties in foreign lands. E.g. some Greek legends attribute the Scythians as descending from a drakaina who persuaded (or coerced) Herakles to mate with her; scholars suspect this is a Hellenized version of a story imported from Scythia. In renaissance art Erichthonios, the "son" of Athena, was sometimes depicted as having scales on at least part of his body; he was strongly associated with serpents and was said to have a snake's tail. ("Son" because complicated narrative gymnastics ensue to let Athena have a son while remaining a virgin goddess.) Then there's the drakon ophiogeneikos, literally "dragon of the serpent-born," who produced the aforementioned "serpent-born" by union with the nymph Halia when she came to the sacred grove he guarded.

So, yeah--whether transhuman, cursed, ritual-created, or (un)naturally-born, there's actually plenty of precedent from Greek myth alone for dragon-people.
 

On the other hand, while dragonborn aren't part-dragon humans the way tieflings are part-fiend humans... why aren't there part-dragon humans? I understand that "dragontouched" is a terrible name even though it parallels planetouched, the base concept is obvious enough to be somewhat conspicuous in its absence. Sorcerers don't really work for this because they're a class, not a race.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
On the other hand, while dragonborn aren't part-dragon humans the way tieflings are part-fiend humans... why aren't there part-dragon humans? I understand that "dragontouched" is a terrible name even though it parallels planetouched, the base concept is obvious enough to be somewhat conspicuous in its absence. Sorcerers don't really work for this because they're a class, not a race.

In previous editions there were. Dragonborn fill the concept
 

ECMO3

Hero
There's little if anything in 5e that came from AD&D. I

I was about to make a post as to how wrong you are about this and then I realized you aren't wrong.

I learned on 1E AD&D and B/X. To me 5E is the best edition so far and to me it "feels" a lot more like 1E than any edition since. 5E to me feels closer to 1E than 2E did even. I am not sure why because 2E borrowed a bunch from 1E.

When you look at the actual rules and mechanics though they are wholly and completely different with nothing similar at all. I can't think of any mechanics that are objectively the same or similar between 1E and 5E ..... but to me they feel similar when playing.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
I was about to make a post as to how wrong you are about this and then I realized you aren't wrong.

I learned on 1E AD&D and B/X. To me 5E is the best edition so far and to me it "feels" a lot more like 1E than any edition since. 5E to me feels closer to 1E than 2E did even. I am not sure why because 2E borrowed a bunch from 1E.

When you look at the actual rules and mechanics though they are wholly and completely different with nothing similar at all. I can't think of any mechanics that are objectively the same or similar between 1E and 5E ..... but to me they feel similar when playing.
Because feel has more to do with:
  1. How comfortable you are while playing it
  2. How confident you are about decisions you make while playing
  3. Whether the holes (because every ruleset has 'em) are in places you care about or not
Each of these applies triple if you're running rather than playing.

It literally has nothing to do with whether the rules are effective or not, whether they are broken or not, whether they are balanced or not. People will still argue about those things until the end of time--again, people flip out about something every book, even people who will swear up and down that they don't give a hoot about balance. But ineffable "feel"? That comes down to stuff completely external to the actual design of the game.

It feels familiar, therefore it is familiar, therefore it is good. If something feels unfamiliar, it doesn't matter how well-made it is, you'll dislike it, you'll feel uncomfortable using it, you'll constantly second-guess yourself, you'll feel trapped by even the broadest and most genially-worded rules and feel abandoned by even the most supportive and constructive ones.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I was about to make a post as to how wrong you are about this and then I realized you aren't wrong.

I learned on 1E AD&D and B/X. To me 5E is the best edition so far and to me it "feels" a lot more like 1E than any edition since. 5E to me feels closer to 1E than 2E did even. I am not sure why because 2E borrowed a bunch from 1E.

When you look at the actual rules and mechanics though they are wholly and completely different with nothing similar at all. I can't think of any mechanics that are objectively the same or similar between 1E and 5E ..... but to me they feel similar when playing.
The chassis is kinda the same - 6 stats, various playable fantasy species plus Humans, classes that adventure for a while and then level up and get better at what they do, ablative hit points, to-hit and damage rolls - but the car built on top of that chassis is greatly different.
 

pemerton

Legend
When you look at the actual rules and mechanics though they are wholly and completely different with nothing similar at all. I can't think of any mechanics that are objectively the same or similar between 1E and 5
The roll to hit (though now called an attack roll) is still on a d20. Damage on a hit is still rolled on a smaller die, with its size varying (roughly) based on weapon size. Likewise saving throws, which are still called saving throws, are rolled on a d20 and permit either avoiding or halving an effect.

A +1 sword plays the same in both systems.

Characters are built on the basis of race (which gives stat adjustments and special abilities) and class (which gives various proficiencies and other abilities).

The technical rules of AD&D and 5e D&D are really very similar. And that's before we get to the processes of play.

to me they feel similar when playing.
I don't think it's hard to adopt similar processes of play for both systems, though if one was using the full dungeoneering rules in AD&D, one would need to bring them into 5e and perhaps tweak some other things to make them work.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top