Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
OSR Gripes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7634393" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Nostalgia is the 'n word' of the OSR community. The very mention of it drives them up the wall. The average member of the OSR community hearing the word thinks that you are saying that they have no real reasons for liking OSR games. The average person using the word merely means that they have a lot of fun playing games 'back in the day' and want to recapture that magic. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The very touchiness they have about criticism of the system is I think pretty telling. I can't imagine a player of 3.X whether 3.5 or pathfinder actually objecting to the idea that 3.X has serious issues out of the box. Indeed, I've never had a discussion with someone who is deeply familiar with a system where I'm also deeply familiar with the system about the systems problems that regularly goes in the direction talking about OSR does. </p><p></p><p>And again, for me the most telling thing is that if you do get one of these OSR people to defend the rules, like 8 out of the 10 things that they'll talk about aren't rules but play processes like rolling attributes, random magic item placement, more challenging encounters, proposition filters to use more fiction specific actions rather than 'moves', and so forth. All of those things can be and frequently are used as either rules variants or simply processes of play using more modern rule sets. Let's get real: 3e had random magic item tables and the default treasure placement methodology in its guidelines is random. Granted, it won't randomly generate a +5 vorpal sword in the hands of a low level goblin the way the 1e tables could, but then I seriously doubt that if the dice did generate that result in 1e AD&D (or OSRIC) that the results would stand, because 1e AD&D and it's emulators had the metarule "don't let the dice ruin the game" that applied to random treasure and random encounters. </p><p></p><p>And then invariably one of the things that they'll cite is that it doesn't have rules, which either undermines the claim or more telling means that they probably either don't know the rules or don't use them. Certainly, if you made the claim '1e AD&D doesn't have rules for X' you'd almost certainly be wrong. What you almost certainly meant was, "While AD&D does have rules for X, they are bad rules and therefore no one uses them."</p><p></p><p>Anyway, my whole point of all this grognardish grumbling is that what OSR is really about is not substance but style. And by that I don't mean that it is about something unimportant any more than by nostalgia I mean 'bad'. By nostalgia I mean good, as in most people aren't nostalgic about things that weren't good. Style is very important and is at least as important as rules, but it doesn't require an OSR ruleset to have an old school game. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, as long as you are willing to concede that this progress is not a smooth and even thing, but is filled with setbacks, mistakes, digressions, and other sorts of failed experiments, then I agree. The mistakes become part of the lessons learned by future designers, which is how we very slowly get better at things.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I can too, but if someone admitted to that it would likely imply very big things about what they really wanted in a system - most of them not healthy. For example, it would imply that they liked to have as an individual player an answer for every problem, and quite possibly that they liked to have spotlight in every challenge. Depending on the sort of wizards that they played and the sort of game that they ran, it might mean that the preferred to play a game without real challenge where they could just go from success to success. Of course, a really self-aware player might actually admit that, though that might not be the traditional metrics of good design, as a practical matter it is actually what they like.</p><p></p><p>By way of contrast, I never had a player play a successful Wizard in any of my 3.X games. Indeed, even when I was running RAW games Wednesday night in open dungeon crawls for all comers at the local game shop, the most successful returning player decided that the only way he was going to survive as a wizard was start a fighter, and then accept that a less powerful but less squishy wizard was the only thing that would work. This is so very much the opposite of CharOp decision making that I can only assume that if the CharOp people are playing anything other than a theoretical character building minigame, that they must be playing a very different game that I was running - even when I was running the same ruleset. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But do they have to acknowledge that? To acknowledge that the 5e spellcaster is better balanced than the 3e full casters is to say that in some sense their victories in 3e weren't earned, but they simply the result of exploiting badly thought out rules. And that word 'exploit' could very well trigger them just as hard as 'nostalgia' triggers members of the OSR community.</p><p></p><p>You have to think about why people play RPGs. There are ton of different reasons for doing it, most of them boiling down to some variation on the 'illusion of success'. And for some people, the illusion of success requires them to not see through the illusion so that it feels like real success. So for our hypothetical player that loved 3.X for its full spellcasters and what you can do with them, to tell that player that that is bad design is to attack them emotionally - you are imperiling the illusion that makes the game fun for them. You are likely to end up in a strange argument with said player about how balance isn't important to an RPG (back to the John Wick school of gaming) and really RPGs are supposed to be unbalanced (or something of the sort) where what's really going on is a proxy argument for "stop attacking my illusion of success".</p><p></p><p>Now obviously, there is something very different going on here, as I've only met a few AD&D players who hard core exploit the spell rules as hard as a 3e CharOp player - though it certainly can be done if you exploit the illusion rules, for example. And the OSR style seems to involve a lot more dying all the time (at least in theory) than the sort of mostly on rails 1-20 AP campaign that become associated with 3e. </p><p></p><p>Again, I don't fully understand it and don't claim to understand it. My best theory is still the one I put forward - for most people their habits of play get attached to particular rules set and if they want to change their habits of play they have to change the rules. From the sort of complaints that I see, the sorts of styles of play and the sorts of habits of play that became stereotypical in say the 3.X era don't appeal to them, and to get away from those ingrained habits or to get their associates away from those ingrained habits they had to change the rules and the atmosphere. And if that worked for them, then more power to them. But for me, the cost of going back to those jankier rules is less than the cost of creating new ways of thinking about 3.X rules, or just tweaking the 3.X rules to nerf spellcasters a bit. And you might have notice from my discussion of 1e AD&D, I don't mind system mastery and optimization either as a player or a DM. To me, well created and conceived characters mechanically just means that there will be greater campaign continuity because the PCs will survive long enough to not just have a great scene but a story. I mean one thing that is definitely telling to me about these discussions is how often he OSR players all assume the best stories about D&D are tales of how some character died.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7634393, member: 4937"] Nostalgia is the 'n word' of the OSR community. The very mention of it drives them up the wall. The average member of the OSR community hearing the word thinks that you are saying that they have no real reasons for liking OSR games. The average person using the word merely means that they have a lot of fun playing games 'back in the day' and want to recapture that magic. The very touchiness they have about criticism of the system is I think pretty telling. I can't imagine a player of 3.X whether 3.5 or pathfinder actually objecting to the idea that 3.X has serious issues out of the box. Indeed, I've never had a discussion with someone who is deeply familiar with a system where I'm also deeply familiar with the system about the systems problems that regularly goes in the direction talking about OSR does. And again, for me the most telling thing is that if you do get one of these OSR people to defend the rules, like 8 out of the 10 things that they'll talk about aren't rules but play processes like rolling attributes, random magic item placement, more challenging encounters, proposition filters to use more fiction specific actions rather than 'moves', and so forth. All of those things can be and frequently are used as either rules variants or simply processes of play using more modern rule sets. Let's get real: 3e had random magic item tables and the default treasure placement methodology in its guidelines is random. Granted, it won't randomly generate a +5 vorpal sword in the hands of a low level goblin the way the 1e tables could, but then I seriously doubt that if the dice did generate that result in 1e AD&D (or OSRIC) that the results would stand, because 1e AD&D and it's emulators had the metarule "don't let the dice ruin the game" that applied to random treasure and random encounters. And then invariably one of the things that they'll cite is that it doesn't have rules, which either undermines the claim or more telling means that they probably either don't know the rules or don't use them. Certainly, if you made the claim '1e AD&D doesn't have rules for X' you'd almost certainly be wrong. What you almost certainly meant was, "While AD&D does have rules for X, they are bad rules and therefore no one uses them." Anyway, my whole point of all this grognardish grumbling is that what OSR is really about is not substance but style. And by that I don't mean that it is about something unimportant any more than by nostalgia I mean 'bad'. By nostalgia I mean good, as in most people aren't nostalgic about things that weren't good. Style is very important and is at least as important as rules, but it doesn't require an OSR ruleset to have an old school game. Well, as long as you are willing to concede that this progress is not a smooth and even thing, but is filled with setbacks, mistakes, digressions, and other sorts of failed experiments, then I agree. The mistakes become part of the lessons learned by future designers, which is how we very slowly get better at things. I can too, but if someone admitted to that it would likely imply very big things about what they really wanted in a system - most of them not healthy. For example, it would imply that they liked to have as an individual player an answer for every problem, and quite possibly that they liked to have spotlight in every challenge. Depending on the sort of wizards that they played and the sort of game that they ran, it might mean that the preferred to play a game without real challenge where they could just go from success to success. Of course, a really self-aware player might actually admit that, though that might not be the traditional metrics of good design, as a practical matter it is actually what they like. By way of contrast, I never had a player play a successful Wizard in any of my 3.X games. Indeed, even when I was running RAW games Wednesday night in open dungeon crawls for all comers at the local game shop, the most successful returning player decided that the only way he was going to survive as a wizard was start a fighter, and then accept that a less powerful but less squishy wizard was the only thing that would work. This is so very much the opposite of CharOp decision making that I can only assume that if the CharOp people are playing anything other than a theoretical character building minigame, that they must be playing a very different game that I was running - even when I was running the same ruleset. But do they have to acknowledge that? To acknowledge that the 5e spellcaster is better balanced than the 3e full casters is to say that in some sense their victories in 3e weren't earned, but they simply the result of exploiting badly thought out rules. And that word 'exploit' could very well trigger them just as hard as 'nostalgia' triggers members of the OSR community. You have to think about why people play RPGs. There are ton of different reasons for doing it, most of them boiling down to some variation on the 'illusion of success'. And for some people, the illusion of success requires them to not see through the illusion so that it feels like real success. So for our hypothetical player that loved 3.X for its full spellcasters and what you can do with them, to tell that player that that is bad design is to attack them emotionally - you are imperiling the illusion that makes the game fun for them. You are likely to end up in a strange argument with said player about how balance isn't important to an RPG (back to the John Wick school of gaming) and really RPGs are supposed to be unbalanced (or something of the sort) where what's really going on is a proxy argument for "stop attacking my illusion of success". Now obviously, there is something very different going on here, as I've only met a few AD&D players who hard core exploit the spell rules as hard as a 3e CharOp player - though it certainly can be done if you exploit the illusion rules, for example. And the OSR style seems to involve a lot more dying all the time (at least in theory) than the sort of mostly on rails 1-20 AP campaign that become associated with 3e. Again, I don't fully understand it and don't claim to understand it. My best theory is still the one I put forward - for most people their habits of play get attached to particular rules set and if they want to change their habits of play they have to change the rules. From the sort of complaints that I see, the sorts of styles of play and the sorts of habits of play that became stereotypical in say the 3.X era don't appeal to them, and to get away from those ingrained habits or to get their associates away from those ingrained habits they had to change the rules and the atmosphere. And if that worked for them, then more power to them. But for me, the cost of going back to those jankier rules is less than the cost of creating new ways of thinking about 3.X rules, or just tweaking the 3.X rules to nerf spellcasters a bit. And you might have notice from my discussion of 1e AD&D, I don't mind system mastery and optimization either as a player or a DM. To me, well created and conceived characters mechanically just means that there will be greater campaign continuity because the PCs will survive long enough to not just have a great scene but a story. I mean one thing that is definitely telling to me about these discussions is how often he OSR players all assume the best stories about D&D are tales of how some character died. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
OSR Gripes
Top