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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What makes an Old School Renaissance FEEL like an OSR game?
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: 6264983" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>First, let me say this is a great thread.</p><p></p><p>Second, let me say that I think that it's a false dichotomy. There is no such thing as "old school" or "new school", and that all the people who invented the concepts are really saying is, "It feels me to me like how D&D was ran by my DM back when I was younger than it does like the D&D as it is ran by my DM now." Or even more to the point, "I approach the game more like I approache the game back then, than I approach the game when presented with rules for 3.X"</p><p></p><p>Or in other words, they really don't understand Celebrim's Second Law of RPGs:</p><p></p><p>"How you think about a system, how you prepare to play it, and how you approach the game is more important than the system itself."</p><p></p><p>By altering the system, they are altering <em>for themselves</em>, how they think about the game and how they feel about it. But they aren't actually changing the game. They are changing themselves. They've simply created a system that they (mostly) won't ruin by playing in a way that they don't enjoy and attributing to that the specifics of the system. In my opinion, it's a sort of willful blindness.</p><p></p><p>I've been playing since like 1981. When I wasn't the DM, I was almost invariably the thief. Now, back in 1984 (let's say), which of the scenarios described in the first Zen of primer (the one about rulings instead of rules) described play around my thief searching for a pit trap? The answer is: neither one. Because even back in 1984 both approaches were supported by play. I could (and did) probe ahead with a 10' pole. And I could (and did) roll against my 'find traps' check to try to determine if my probing with the pole had missed the trap (or vica versa). Moreover, many DMs did require I specify rather exactly what I was looking at when making a 'find traps' roll, so that to a certain extent to do one I had to do the other. This was never an 'either/or' world; it was a 'both/and' world right from the start.</p><p></p><p>And let's not overlook the willful blindness involved in distinguishing between 'rules' and 'rulings' in the first place. Just because a 'ruling' isn't part of the book, isn't formalized, and isn't written down doesn't mean it isn't a rule. Creating rules on the fly and off the cuff is still creating rules. Common Law is still law. The real difference so far as I can tell between 'rulings' and 'rules' is how the player makiing that distinction approaches the game. He's giving himself permission to play in a less hidebound, less metagamey, less rules lawyerish way by conceding that in this new game it won't be appropriate. But you could make those concessions as part of your approach to the game without changing the system.</p><p></p><p>This attempt to separate what in my opinion was never separate in the first place is a I think a hallmark of the retro-clones and OSR games. It's not actually recreating games as they actually were, so much as at best recreating games as you wanted them to be or were for you then but not are for you now because you changed or your group changed.</p><p></p><p>Take the division between Heroic/Superheroic. Again, it wasn't either/or, it was both/and. I had characters that started out as weaklings evolve into the mightiest beings on the planet. That was fully 'old school'. I maintain still that in terms of relative power, the game I played with PC's that were the absolute mightiest in terms of their influence, power, and security was a 1e game. Someone mentioned old school as 'single digit hit points with double digit damage', and yes that is 'old school'. But so was having an 18 con, and being a 10th level fighter or barbarian or cavelier with higher hit points than anything in the game that wasn't a unique extraplanar ruler, moving around in a world where 3d6 damage from a foe was truly extreme and even 16HD monsters (the highest value on the table) needed a natural 16 or better to hit your AC. That was old school too. Old school always supported 'zero to hero' and beyond if you wanted to take it there, and new systems fully support staying in a low level sweet spot if you want to keep them there. I'm 240 hours into my current 3e campaign and the PCs are 6th level. Top that OSR.</p><p></p><p>Personally I have a hard time going back to OSR style rule sets because I actually remember play as it actually was and I left it not because I didn't like the goals, but becase I remember the problems that highly ambigous and overly situational rules had obtaining those goals. Everyone was always tinkering with the rules back then precisely because the rules were failing so often, and the bodies of Common Law were becoming huge, unwieldy, and cumbersome. </p><p></p><p>Personally, I don't feel 3e plays all that differently to 1e, except that it is smoother, easier to run, and involves fewer rules arguments.</p><p></p><p>But that's almost entirely because of the way I think about the game. I fully understand that if you think about it differently, you get different results.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6264983, member: 4937"] First, let me say this is a great thread. Second, let me say that I think that it's a false dichotomy. There is no such thing as "old school" or "new school", and that all the people who invented the concepts are really saying is, "It feels me to me like how D&D was ran by my DM back when I was younger than it does like the D&D as it is ran by my DM now." Or even more to the point, "I approach the game more like I approache the game back then, than I approach the game when presented with rules for 3.X" Or in other words, they really don't understand Celebrim's Second Law of RPGs: "How you think about a system, how you prepare to play it, and how you approach the game is more important than the system itself." By altering the system, they are altering [I]for themselves[/I], how they think about the game and how they feel about it. But they aren't actually changing the game. They are changing themselves. They've simply created a system that they (mostly) won't ruin by playing in a way that they don't enjoy and attributing to that the specifics of the system. In my opinion, it's a sort of willful blindness. I've been playing since like 1981. When I wasn't the DM, I was almost invariably the thief. Now, back in 1984 (let's say), which of the scenarios described in the first Zen of primer (the one about rulings instead of rules) described play around my thief searching for a pit trap? The answer is: neither one. Because even back in 1984 both approaches were supported by play. I could (and did) probe ahead with a 10' pole. And I could (and did) roll against my 'find traps' check to try to determine if my probing with the pole had missed the trap (or vica versa). Moreover, many DMs did require I specify rather exactly what I was looking at when making a 'find traps' roll, so that to a certain extent to do one I had to do the other. This was never an 'either/or' world; it was a 'both/and' world right from the start. And let's not overlook the willful blindness involved in distinguishing between 'rules' and 'rulings' in the first place. Just because a 'ruling' isn't part of the book, isn't formalized, and isn't written down doesn't mean it isn't a rule. Creating rules on the fly and off the cuff is still creating rules. Common Law is still law. The real difference so far as I can tell between 'rulings' and 'rules' is how the player makiing that distinction approaches the game. He's giving himself permission to play in a less hidebound, less metagamey, less rules lawyerish way by conceding that in this new game it won't be appropriate. But you could make those concessions as part of your approach to the game without changing the system. This attempt to separate what in my opinion was never separate in the first place is a I think a hallmark of the retro-clones and OSR games. It's not actually recreating games as they actually were, so much as at best recreating games as you wanted them to be or were for you then but not are for you now because you changed or your group changed. Take the division between Heroic/Superheroic. Again, it wasn't either/or, it was both/and. I had characters that started out as weaklings evolve into the mightiest beings on the planet. That was fully 'old school'. I maintain still that in terms of relative power, the game I played with PC's that were the absolute mightiest in terms of their influence, power, and security was a 1e game. Someone mentioned old school as 'single digit hit points with double digit damage', and yes that is 'old school'. But so was having an 18 con, and being a 10th level fighter or barbarian or cavelier with higher hit points than anything in the game that wasn't a unique extraplanar ruler, moving around in a world where 3d6 damage from a foe was truly extreme and even 16HD monsters (the highest value on the table) needed a natural 16 or better to hit your AC. That was old school too. Old school always supported 'zero to hero' and beyond if you wanted to take it there, and new systems fully support staying in a low level sweet spot if you want to keep them there. I'm 240 hours into my current 3e campaign and the PCs are 6th level. Top that OSR. Personally I have a hard time going back to OSR style rule sets because I actually remember play as it actually was and I left it not because I didn't like the goals, but becase I remember the problems that highly ambigous and overly situational rules had obtaining those goals. Everyone was always tinkering with the rules back then precisely because the rules were failing so often, and the bodies of Common Law were becoming huge, unwieldy, and cumbersome. Personally, I don't feel 3e plays all that differently to 1e, except that it is smoother, easier to run, and involves fewer rules arguments. But that's almost entirely because of the way I think about the game. I fully understand that if you think about it differently, you get different results. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
What makes an Old School Renaissance FEEL like an OSR game?
Top