• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

OSR OSR Gripes

Monayuris

Explorer
I don't think that they do. How you think about and prepare to play a game is entirely different than the rules you use to adjudicate it. OSR doesn't have a monopoly on style, or challenge, or opened ended games. You don't need to use an OSR rules set to have a proposition filter on your game that validates players making highly improvisational, open ended, and fiction specific propositions. "I carefully push aside the curtain with my 10' pole." is not a rule set specific proposition. It's just a way of approaching playing a game.

All the rules do for you - all any rules do for you - is provide a tool kit for handling how those propositions turn into new fictional positioning. You don't need old and busted ideas about doing that in order to run an old school game. I don't need another table argument about how infravision works. I don't need another table argument about what the chance to detect an invisible creature should be. I don't need to wrack my brain for whether or not the PC should drown. None of that is essential to running an old school game. That's warts of an old school game. That's the part I'm more than willing to leave behind. But the parts that I love, I can totally take with me. I don't need to give up any of that to use a rule set with functional skills and environment rules and a clear set of general fortune tests that are applicable to generic situations.

When someone says "old school games play absolutely fine" it really makes me wonder if you played them. Like as soon as I read the 'scent' rule in 3.0e, I smelled the 1980's and the old pizza and the table arguments as we tried to get realism and the rules to mesh into something everyone at the table agreed to. And if that didn't happen for you, where you even there?
Oh they most certainly do.

I still play them (I run a B/X game every Tuesday to a full table). I enjoy them. I'm perfectly happy running and playing B/X and its clones. They work perfectly fine for me.

I don't know why you have to come in and tell me the game i enjoy is old and busted or I don't actually play them.

You are certainly welcome to enjoy the games you like. As I said there are tons of games that fix the problems you have with OSR games.

Happy gaming.
 

5ekyu

Explorer
Throw yourself into combat early and often. Be reckless. You will either get very lucky and make 2nd level or die. Then you can roll up a new, hopefully more robust PC. In other words, create your own character funnel.

Being crazy reckless with a PC can be fun.
Hah.

Sounds like the slow motion version of traveller's death in chargen, only here you may get to take other PCs folks like with you!!!

:)
 
Oh they most certainly do.

I still play them (I run a B/X game every Tuesday to a full table). I enjoy them. I'm perfectly happy running and playing B/X and its clones. They work perfectly fine for me.

I don't know why you have to come in and tell me the game i enjoy is old and busted or I don't actually play them.

You are certainly welcome to enjoy the games you like. As I said there are tons of games that fix the problems you have with OSR games.

Happy gaming.
Naked contradiction is fine, but you'd be a lot more convincing if you were willing to tackle any of the issues I'm bringing up. If I started bringing up the problems with a having narrow wheels on an all steel body car with a high center of gravity, and you just told me, "It always worked for me." you wouldn't really convince me you had a lot of experience with the car no how matter how you told me you still drove one weekly.
 

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought
My first car was a 1964 1/2 Ford Mustang with the Econoglide package. Beautiful car. Also had to fix or repair it daily. There are things I love about that car, but I don't miss having to fix or repair it daily even though I do miss being able to practically crawl under the hood and actually fix or repair a car because it was built to be torn apart and put together easily.

My suspicion is that if you haven't actually owned a classic car that you rebuilt out of the junk yard, you probably shouldn't tell me how great it is to own one.

My current car is a stripped down baseline package with as little bells and whistles as possible because all I wanted to pay for was 'car' and not bells and whistles that could break. Not having to fix the thing all the time is a big plus.
Your suspicion is incorrect.

I like my cars like my RPGs. Old and gorgeous.

Preferences are an interesting, and personal, thing. It’s usually not helpful to assume others share yours. ;)
 

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!
I run S&W in a meat grinder dungeon. Stats don't matter much, there aren't any skills to speak of, and the rules are pretty sparse. Awesome! Tell me what your PC is doing and I'll adjudicate according to the rules we have and if there aren't any I'll use my best judgment and try to be consistent. Its a more player focused game IME, less fiddling about with the knobs and dodads on your character sheet, and more engaging with the game environment. One thing I've realized over the decades is rules can only get in the way of fun, for the most part. None of the more rules heavy systems I ran or played in, were more fun due to the heavier rules systems. The fun was always from how a player tried to approach a situation. But my group isn't a bunch that likes too tweak PC builds and work away from the game table. Its pretty casual beer and pretzels gaming group and a system like S&W works just fine for us. Some you can do all that and more with 5e, 4e, PF, etc. And if so bless you! For dungeon bashing D&D style gaming S&W works perfectly for me without having to house rules it up a lot.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Your suspicion is incorrect.

I like my cars like my RPGs. Old and gorgeous.

Preferences are an interesting, and personal, thing. It’s usually not helpful to assume others share yours. ;)
I can't reply to him because I assume he has me on ignore, but I can see your quote. I have a 1968 Camaro. That I restored myself. And he's wrong. Well, his experiences aren't wrong of course, but the implication that an old classic car constantly breaks down is. Every "new" car I've owned frequently needs repair. The more things to go wrong, the more things that do. My Camaro? Going strong and almost never needs anything other than routine maintenance. Why? Because there's nothing to break. It's a frame, engine, and drivetrain. Pretty much it. Greatest car I've ever owned. Love it.

camaro.jpg
 
Your suspicion is incorrect.
This is what I actually said: "My suspicion is that if you haven't actually owned a classic car that you rebuilt out of the junk yard, you probably shouldn't tell me how great it is to own one."

What part of that is incorrect?

Are you saying that you haven't owned a classic car, but you should tell me how great it is to own one?

Because if you are saying you do own a classic car, then by what I said you can tell me how great it is to own one. Is that the part that is incorrect?

Preferences are an interesting, and personal, thing. It’s usually not helpful to assume others share yours. ;)
I find it's usually not helpful to not respond to what people actually say.
 
Last edited:

lowkey13

Exterminate all rational thought
Oh yeah. Now I remember. (You're not missing anything, @Sacrosanct ... but c'mon, where is the bitchin' Camaro joke?)


Anyway, there is something fundamentally odd, to me, with those who argue against OSR and/or retroclones as solely the product of nostalgia as if there is some sort of objective measure of RPGs that they fail.

The resurgence of OSR and retroclones was, in part, driven by nostalgia; but not solely. There is something appealing about those particular rulesets, in the same way that an Audi 80 Coupe from 1972 can be appealing today.

Even now, I find myself exploring not just OSR and retroclones in my spare time, but other older rulesets. I recently found a copy of the Amber ruleset to mess around with, for example. I still haven't found as good of a Paranoia ruleset as the Second (for my purposes) and I'm not sure how I feel about the new WFRPG.

It comes down to preferences; asserting that one game or another is better or people are foolish for liking what they like (yucking on someone else's yum) seems like a particularly poor way of spending time.

IMO. :)
 
Last edited:

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
Saying it’s only because of nostalgia infers that we never really had fun with them, or if we did, we weren’t smart enough to know better. Obviously that’s a flawed argument. There are plenty of strategy games, but lots of people still enjoy chess.

And even setting that aside, they act like nostalgia is a bad word. If something makes you feel good when playing it, that’s what’s important.
 
Last edited:

MichaelSomething

Adventurer
I thought the point of OSR play was to use lateral thinking to bypass the rules???

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]https://archives.erfworld.com/Book%201/147[/FONT]
 

Monayuris

Explorer
Naked contradiction is fine, but you'd be a lot more convincing if you were willing to tackle any of the issues I'm bringing up. If I started bringing up the problems with a having narrow wheels on an all steel body car with a high center of gravity, and you just told me, "It always worked for me." you wouldn't really convince me you had a lot of experience with the car no how matter how you told me you still drove one weekly.
So I think this conversation may have got off to the wrong foot a little.

If you thought that my post was an insult to you, I apologize I didn't intend that.

My point was more addressing the assertion that running a game based on rulings somehow means you can't have an objective game. My assertion was that with practice and learning, it is indeed possible to run a game based on rulings that is 100% objective.

It is something that requires work and study and skill. This is a statement of fact and not a supposition of your own capabilities as a DM. In fact, it is something that I work on all the time and try to improve at. Personally, I feel the work I put in helps make me a better DM, so I find the endeavor worth it and satisfying. I love D&D and anything that helps me be better at it is something worth doing. I also run and play 5E... the same work helps me be better at that game as well.


To the actual post:

I'm really not sure of what I need to convince you. You said this, here:

When someone says "old school games play absolutely fine" it really makes me wonder if you played them. Like as soon as I read the 'scent' rule in 3.0e, I smelled the 1980's and the old pizza and the table arguments as we tried to get realism and the rules to mesh into something everyone at the table agreed to. And if that didn't happen for you, were you even there?


You are projecting your own experiences on me.

You are making the assertion that older versions of D&D are broken and old and busted and are to be abandoned for newer versions. I simply don't share the same viewpoint or experiences with the game. You go on to assert that if I don't have a similar outlook as you towards the game, then I'm lying and I have not actually played these games.

This is a ridiculous assertion.

I don't need to convince you or anyone. If you don't believe me, I don't care.

I don't need to tackle any of the issues you bring up. You already have a multitude of versions of D&D that serve you better. Enjoy playing those games.
 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Adventurer
People have different tastes.

Don't like it don't play it's fairly simple. If you are somewhat competent it's hard to die in 5E. Throw in whack a mole bonus action healing it gets boring after a while.
 
I don't need to convince you or anyone. If you don't believe me, I don't care.

I don't need to tackle any of the issues you bring up.
Ok. Here's the thing. There are plenty of people on this board that run 1e AD&D. But my general experience with them is when I bring up specific rule issues, they either agree that it is a problem or they talk about how they've rulesmithed their way around them - often decades ago. What they generally don't do is tell me in very general terms how its not a problem because they got skills, or try to convince me that rulings are somehow 'objective'. It's one thing to go, "Hey, that's just your opinion man.", and another to tell me that and also assert that the DM's opinion is objective.
 
People have different tastes.

Don't like it don't play it's fairly simple. If you are somewhat competent it's hard to die in 5E. Throw in whack a mole bonus action healing it gets boring after a while.
Difficulty is always a matter of encounter design. All you have to do to make it easy to die is throw a party up against more than the 'expected' danger. And that's not particularly challenging. If you want to replicate the terror of being first level and maybe going down to a single hit in say 3e, you just throw a Ogre at the party with say a large sized two-handed sword, or throw a gargoyle at the party. Games like LotFP basically do that sort of thing. It's not that the game is challenging, it's that it just throws encounters at a party when they don't have the answers to the problems that they'll have at a higher level.

I don't claim to be a 5e expert, but I would generally expect the same sort of encounter design strategy to yield the same sort of 'challenge'.
 

Samloyal23

Explorer
You want to survive? Fight dirty, use poison, be prepared to run. If you are being chased by a monster, you do not have to outrun the monster, just outrun another party member. If the monster is getting too close, knock out the guy next to you and then keep running. Also, use ranged weapons. Keep the enemy at a distance. Run and gun, keeping your distance from the enemy. You can be noble when you get another hit die.
 

Zardnaar

Adventurer
You want to survive? Fight dirty, use poison, be prepared to run. If you are being chased by a monster, you do not have to outrun the monster, just outrun another party member. If the monster is getting too close, knock out the guy next to you and then keep running. Also, use ranged weapons. Keep the enemy at a distance. Run and gun, keeping your distance from the enemy. You can be noble when you get another hit die.
Plan A drop food.
Plan B drop the other person.

NPCs surrendering often meant volunteers for trap finding.
 
I like my RPGs like I like my cars…small and easy to park? I drive a Honda Fit. It lives up to the name, which in a city, is a good thing.

Although, maybe there is something to the analogy. One of the surest ways to turn me off on an RPG is to have a giant core book.

I like my cars like my RPGs. Old and gorgeous.
 
I think that’s just arguing semantics. Sure, I enjoyed the paladin trying to pull something like that off. To me, that’s the sort of sacrifice that a classic paladin would make, when hope is nearly lost. I adjudicated an opposed role and the villain failed their check.

The player came up with something that used the environment, played to the DM’s game style, and wasn’t just “I swing my sword, use a magic item, cast a spell, or use a class ability.” Call it whatever you like, but I stand by my original statement.

With respect, if we are talking about a game like 1e AD&D or BECMI that's not playing smart.

That's simply entertaining your DM. You weren't outwitted. You just enjoyed the scene and so allowed it.
 

Advertisement

Top