OSR What Has Caused the OSR Revival?

[pemerton]

Nostalgia is just one element of modern fantasy. Tolkien was nostalgic. The 1930s pulp Swords & Sorcery authors weren't nostalgic at all.

he was specifically referring to Conanesque S&S as escapism, which it is. And it'snot nostalgic at all - when REH wrote Conan he wasn't grieving for a lost golden age when Men Were Men, probably because he was still living in that era and among those Men.

I agree that Tolkien is extremely nostalgic and sentimental - although he also has a technical/academic interest in pre-modern literary forms, which he is (to some extent, at least) trying to replicate in LotR and many of his epic poems.

I agree that REH is in a different category from Tolkien - a sort of reactionary modernism rather than reactionary romanticism - but I wouldn't agree that he's free of nostalgia. I think the critical essays in the Patrice Louinet editions (those are the versions that I know) help bring this out to some extent.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

What has caused the OSR Revival?

There are probably people who play OSR games because of nostalgia. I'm sure they're in the minority, because I talk to OSR people most days and I listen to what they say. Nostalgia is not normally among the reasons they give.

On my computer, I have a copy of DOSBox. At the moment, I'm replaying Sword of Aragon and Master of Orion 2. Is this because of nostalgia? Is it because I love command line interfaces or 300x240 graphics? Or is it because they're bloody good games and I like to play them and I don't give a rat's behind what the graphics look like?

Soon, I will replay Planescape: Torment again. And I still like Civ3, as well. This has nothing to do with nostalgia either.

The OSR is to WOTC editions as Linux is to Microsoft. It comes in lots of different flavours, all of which are fundamentally similar; the people who use it are, by and large, enthusiasts and have, by and large, their own particular ingredients to their gaming systems that they like. They generally expect games to be free, or low-cost, so they can afford to try lots of different ones within their gaming budget. And they don't mind a bit of hacking to get their systems running exactly how they want them to run.

In short, like Linux people, OSR people tend to be (a) quite experienced and (b) control freaks. (Linux people do tend to have longer beards, though.)

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

The only thing that pushed me to OSR games is D&D 3.x just got way to much work to run past level 7-8 or so. And 4e didn't look much like D&D to me. Now I've found DCC and I'm in love with it.

 

[froggie]

Why? --at least for me

I never left. Sure, I produced maybe 150 books for Pathfinder and 3.X--but my home game was always 1E/0E based.

I always found that too many rules/feats/potential for player abuse/skills replacing thinking/other killed the game and made it more of a board game (not edition flaming here--its style of play differences and a matter of preference--all are good) than an old style rpg.

I liked fewer rules/house rules better than prescribed solutions. I liked a low power game where everything was vulnerable--and risk for a 10th level guy vs. 10 orcs existed.

I don't think that OSR is for everyone. It takes a tremendous amount of experience to DM properly. Its harder to play--you have to majorly interact with each other rather than roll dice. That being said, I prefer it. Death for players is less severe--its actually ok if they die. The risk factor is significantly increased. I can go on for hours I think--but back to writing Sword of Air!

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Ditto on what Froggie said. I never left 1e. Been playing it more or less consistently for 33 years or so (since '81; started wit Basic in '79/'80). For us (my group and I), 1e allows us to pretty much play any style of game we want. We've done high-power (not really our thing), lots of mid-power (maybe 40%), and mostly low-power (60%). Favorite game worlds are Greyhawk (pre-wars) and Eisla (my home brew; very low-power).

The thing I think that draws folks to the OSR is, for me, the amount of planning a DM needs to do for "this weeks game". With OSR, the rules are *actually* seen as guidelines...they allow the DM and Players to make rulings on a case by case or campaign by campaign basis. OSR systems are, by default, very "modular"; it's dirt simple to rip out some aspect and replace it with something else, all without affecting much else, thusly allowing easy use of already published material. For example, take out the Saves of 1e and replace with a single "Save" stat; races/classes give bonuses to rolls (e.g. "Half-Orc's get +1 to Save against poison and disease"). Too simple? Ok, replace it with 3e/PF style saving throws.

The other major shinny factor is that OSR games have an assumed "player is the character" outlook. Basically, when a player is faced with "A 60' high stone wall blocks the way" the player is expected to ask questions for more detail..."The stone is rough granite, very solid, but not well made"...then the player comes up with a plan..."OK, Smergiopy the Stealthy will take the 50' rope and grapple and climb up to the top. Then he'll make sure it attaches firmly at the top so the others can try and climb up". That is opposed to more modernized games that shift the focus to the character, where you get more of "A 60' high stone wall blocks the way"..."OK. The thief uses Climb."..."So does my Mage"..."And my fighter, but I'll take my armor off first"..."Well, I guess my clumsy cleric will try too...oh hey! Climb is Str based! Sweet!"...

At any rate, I'm glad that the OSR occurred. There are a LOT more places on the net where I can ask "What page is the 'Detect Invisible by Intelligence' on again", and get a reply of "DMG, page 60" in stead of "Uh...what?".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[BRG]

"Damn the rules, full immersion ahead"'

How about a desire for creative storytelling and ROLE-playing rather than power gaming. As Gygax was reported to have said (I paraphrase) the one secret is that you don't need any rules. I am not suggesting we don't need rules, but we need players to stop trying to control the game thru rules lawyering and allow themselves to become immersed in the world and the story, not the books. Play your character, not the rules. "Old School" has a freeing quality to it because you don't have to pour over rules minutiae and tomes of references in order to play the game.

Or something along those lines.

Bruce

 

[icemaster109]

I don't know what caused the revival overall, but I can tell you how I came to it.

I was a child of the 90's, and my first introduction to roleplaying was with White Wolf in around 98 or so. So my Roleplaying career had pretty much been forged in that high drama mentality mark of things. For years I experimented with various systems and the little experience I had with D&D (3e +) and Pathfinder left a bad taste in my mouth. To me and my friends it just seemed like a haven for power gaming. People had builds, and best methods, and everything seemed kind of video gamey in my eyes (and this was before 4e). In a way it was also intimidating. On the flip side indie games started getting too "indie" - GMless, diceless, narrativist free form hippity dippity shared storytelling formats were just too "loose" for us. Everything had just become so polarized. So if we couldn't look to the future for games, we instead started looking back. We began to like what we saw.

Games that were crunchy where it needed to be, but not overbearing. Implied settings where the books give you just enough to spark your imagination, instead of dropping tomes of background onto your plate. Games that suggested you play how you want and actually meant it. If I could sum it up into one word it would be: Freedom. I think over the years games really began to dictate how you play. Sure they give you the obligatory "Feel free to deviate from the source" speech - but it was never sincere. Even the indie games, which claim to be soo free form sill end up coming off preachy. The truth is they want you to play the game how they envisioned it. However, it feels like the intention of those founding gamers was that they just wanted you to play, period. Its that type of attitude presented in the OSR games that keeps us putting them on our table.

Likewise it opened up new interests too. Instead of reading over pages of obnoxious meta-plots and fiction (I only use bits and pieces of anyway) I started to read over the history of tabletop roleplaying, which is super interesting.

 

[BRG]

Well said, Icemaster, well said. You sum up the feelings for many people who see the new wave of rules as almost a 180 degree turn away from the original intent: "If I could sum it up into one word it would be: Freedom." An apt analogy is the difference between a paint-by-number kit, and a blank canvas with a palette full of colors; the 3.0's etc. being the paint-by-number. Don't think, don't be creative, just power up and roll some dice. Though I am sure there are those who use these more modern rules who do play with a great deal of creativity and thought, I would say it is in spite of the rules, not because.

​

 

[howandwhy99]

To me, the new indie games take the approach of Blank Page to allow creativity to construct any shared story. Rules are there only to inspire, prepare, and help people share.

Current D&D games take the approach of game systems to min/max, master, and powergame to high levels and build extraordinary PC designs.

& Old School games are the best of both worlds. Blank Pages for players to be as creative as they want to be with inspiration coming from a vivid world used for backdrop or discovery, but a world generated by the DM via awesome game systems which allow for ongoing learning in powergaming (proficiency) and mastery (knowledge) all while playing without reference to most rules.

 

[Oldehouserules]

The hobby has changed enough (it's been 40 years) that it's substantially different from where it began, and people want to get back to that time because:

(1) It is seen (truthfully or not) as being more pure (and this may be true, given that in 1974, fantasy was NOT mainstream and games could not POSSIBLY be based on other games, as these didn't exist yet).

(2) These games played differently, and this approach is enjoyable in itself.

(3) Early games were an amateur affair (there was no role-playing/gaming industry yet) which meant that players felt more free to add or change things, and this was part of the hobby's appeal. Each campaign was a game unto itself, even if the same basic rules were being used...

This is not in any particular order, and there are many more, no doubt.