OSR vs OSE

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I might opine that OSE Advanced, rather than being closer to 1st edition AD&D, replicates AD&D content/ideas (that is, expanded classes, spells, magic items, and monsters), but mechanically converts them to the simpler, somewhat less powerful B/X rules framework. It also adds a few mechanical options from AD&D (split race & class, and spell acquisition, for two examples), again, in simplified and clarified forms.

Which IS, for the record, the way a lot of folks who stated with B/X, Holmes Basic, or BECMI but couldn't quite parse the AD&D rulebooks actually played AD&D. Kind of kludging them together and simplifying rather than figuring out (say) the intricacies of AD&D initiative rules and so forth.

Yeah, I think very few people actually played any of the TSR versions "pure," but synthesized the parts they liked (or understood) together, especially when it came to running adventures. So in a way, the OSR approach is a very, very old one.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, I think very few people actually played any of the TSR versions "pure," but synthesized the parts they liked (or understood) together, especially when it came to running adventures. So in a way, the OSR approach is a very, very old one.

This assertion always confounds me. I started with BECMI and because of our circumstances (living in the boonies) we played it for 4 years with nothing but the boxed sets (yes, The Isle of Dread was the only adventure I had ever sen and the Known World was the only campaign setting). When we finally moved and became suddenly aware of all the extra stuff, we "graduated" to 1E -- and then within a couple months 2E had come out, so we upgraded to that. We never mixed anything from the earlier editions with 2E (except the war machine and domain rules, but that's because there weren't 2E rules). We just moved to the new rule set. It has pretty much always been the same for me: if I choose to upgrade to a new edition of a game, I never bring anything forward from an older edition (if there is a rule for it in the new edition). And I am not just talking about D&D here. D6 Star Wars, Earthdawn, Mutants and Masterminds, Savage Worlds, and all the other games I have played, if I upgrade, the old rules are abandoned.

Huh. I never really thought deeply about that before. I wonder what it means?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't think it's possible to get really good polling on this, since most of the players from that era aren't located in any place where pollsters could get to them, even for an opt-in poll, but anecdotally, people not playing B or X modules with AD&D or AD&D modules with BD&D characters seems very rare.

But definitely gaming "culture" was almost entirely at the basement level, rather than anything more widespread, since Dragon magazine, the most-read gaming publication, only touched thousands of people and largely wasn't interested in gaming culture. The zine culture was more interested in such issues, but was orders of magnitude smaller in reach.

So I would guess that lots of groups had incredibly idiosyncratic approaches to how the game was played, absent social media, Reddit, YouTube and message boards.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think it's possible to get really good polling on this, since most of the players from that era aren't located in any place where pollsters could get to them, even for an opt-in poll, but anecdotally, people not playing B or X modules with AD&D or AD&D modules with BD&D characters seems very rare.

But definitely gaming "culture" was almost entirely at the basement level, rather than anything more widespread, since Dragon magazine, the most-read gaming publication, only touched thousands of people and largely wasn't interested in gaming culture. The zine culture was more interested in such issues, but was orders of magnitude smaller in reach.

So I would guess that lots of groups had incredibly idiosyncratic approaches to how the game was played, absent social media, Reddit, YouTube and message boards.

I think it is probably timing. if you started in 1981 all those products were still floating around in roughly equal measure and you were probably introduced by someone who started in 1977 or whatever. The book store certainly did not know or care about the difference, and neither did you, probably. By 1985 when i started, even 1E was a tame beast with pressed shirts on (looking at you Wilderness Survival Guide). So the gonzo aspects of orange bordered modules and such were not anywhere I saw them, at least. But, again, we were in the boonies in upstate New York and we were lucky to find the BECMI boxed sets, let alone any actual modules.

 

[Mannahnin]

This assertion always confounds me. I started with BECMI and because of our circumstances (living in the boonies) we played it for 4 years with nothing but the boxed sets (yes, The Isle of Dread was the only adventure I had ever sen and the Known World was the only campaign setting). When we finally moved and became suddenly aware of all the extra stuff, we "graduated" to 1E -- and then within a couple months 2E had come out, so we upgraded to that. We never mixed anything from the earlier editions with 2E (except the war machine and domain rules, but that's because there weren't 2E rules). We just moved to the new rule set. It has pretty much always been the same for me: if I choose to upgrade to a new edition of a game, I never bring anything forward from an older edition (if there is a rule for it in the new edition). And I am not just talking about D&D here. D6 Star Wars, Earthdawn, Mutants and Masterminds, Savage Worlds, and all the other games I have played, if I upgrade, the old rules are abandoned.

Huh. I never really thought deeply about that before. I wonder what it means?

I was similar. I started with Mentzer Basic and Cook Expert, and continued acquiring Mentzer boxed sets, and while I did start acquiring AD&D books (starting with Unearthed Arcana or Oriental Adventures, which were both new at the time), after some initial confusion, and with the help of Dragon Magazine, I realized that they were different games. I never really played 1E except at a couple of conventions, though. When 2nd ed came out that was a fresh start and we left BECMI behind.

Certainly the party line from TSR was that they were different games, and as a young gamer I took that seriously.

I don't think it's possible to get really good polling on this, since most of the players from that era aren't located in any place where pollsters could get to them, even for an opt-in poll, but anecdotally, people not playing B or X modules with AD&D or AD&D modules with BD&D characters seems very rare.

But definitely gaming "culture" was almost entirely at the basement level, rather than anything more widespread, since Dragon magazine, the most-read gaming publication, only touched thousands of people and largely wasn't interested in gaming culture. The zine culture was more interested in such issues, but was orders of magnitude smaller in reach.

So I would guess that lots of groups had incredibly idiosyncratic approaches to how the game was played, absent social media, Reddit, YouTube and message boards.

Yes, I think it's really hard to say how many people mixed them and how many kept them distinct. My personal recollection was that they were understood back in the 80s to be different and not entirely compatible, but of course experienced and confident gamers would have had no problem mixing them. And others would have done so out of necessity/incomprehension of the obfuscatory 1E rulebooks.

Learning that people mashed them up and simplified AD&D was something I first encountered in the OSR, though it made perfect sense,

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

By 1985 when i started, even 1E was a tame beast with pressed shirts on (looking at you Wilderness Survival Guide).

I think that's fair. That was actually the point that my groups started to break up, since we were becoming more interested in high school stuff, no matter how much Will Byers complained.

It makes perfect sense that would be a cultural dividing line.

 

[el-remmen]

I knew they were "different" and most of the ways they were different, but also knew that they were more alike than not in ways that mattered (like the compatibility of modules and lore), so I integrated lots of B/X and BECMI stuff to AD&D - like, for example, @Reynard's aforementioned warmachine rules from the Companion set.

 

[The Soloist]

We started with BX and moved to AD&D. I realized three years ago that we didn't play AD&D as written. We assumed combat was the same as BX and bolted on the AD&D race+class+spells+equipment. 2e was different. I played it exactly as written.

 

[GothmogIV]

We started on 1e (the Holmes blue book) in 1981, moved on to 2e, and used materials from B/X in our games. After a ten year hiatus, we started with 3e, skipped 4e all together, and now have been playing 5e (which I don't love). We've recently jumped to Dungeon Crawl Classics, which we love, but it's a bit swingy for a long-term campaign (i.e. characters die too easily). We just started Dragonbane last week, which is fun.

 

[The Soloist]

We started on 1e (the Holmes blue book) in 1981, moved on to 2e, and used materials from B/X in our games. After a ten year hiatus, we started with 3e, skipped 4e all together, and now have been playing 5e (which I don't love). We've recently jumped to Dungeon Crawl Classics, which we love, but it's a bit swingy for a long-term campaign (i.e. characters die too easily). We just started Dragonbane last week, which is fun.

We played our third game of Dragonbane last night. It's solid. We love it.