D&D General Why is "OSR style" D&D Fun For You?

[Thomas Shey]

To be fair we could probably dig up rules to play dragons and devil people before 1980 if we bothered to dig.

Dragons absolutely. I still game with a guy who did those.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The fact that such things would need to be dug up supports my point.

Incidentally, I am aware that in the earliest days more unusual creatures were used as PCs, but this sort of thing faded early to my knowledge.

Only because people interested in such mostly went elsewhere as D&D got more rigid.

 

[Lanefan]

It's not just modern gamers. There are many of us who have come to the conclusion that the story can be interesting only if we get to experience it. Ending it early because "death" is not a story I have the need to experience repeatedly.

Does the party's story end when a character dies and is replaced (or revived)?

Of course not; and thus you-as-player still get to experience the story.

 

[Hussar]

Does the party's story end when a character dies and is replaced (or revived)?

Of course not; and thus you-as-player still get to experience the story.

The point is, there were folks like me back in the eighties that didn’t run meat grinder games. Where it was pretty standard that the characters made at level one would mostly be the same characters at the end of the campaign.

IME that wasn’t uncommon at all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Does the party's story end when a character dies and is replaced (or revived)?

Of course not; and thus you-as-player still get to experience the story.

I don't make a character for "me"... I make a character to experience life as a character.

You know where I'm coming from because we've had this discussion before.

If the character itself doesn't matter and all that does is me the player... then there's no reason to play a "roleplaying" game. I'll just play a board game. Heck, if any of us just wanted to play D&D as a survival exercise, we could all just play Wrath of Ashardalond or Legend of Drizzt. Then we can all play "don't die while using D&D mechanics" without all that pesky "character" stuff getting in the way.

 

[Reynard]

I don't make a character for "me"... I make a character to experience life as a character.

You know where I'm coming from because we've had this discussion before.

If the character itself doesn't matter and all that does is me the player... then there's no reason to play a "roleplaying" game. I'll just play a board game. Heck, if any of us just wanted to play D&D as a survival exercise, we could all just play Wrath of Ashardalond or Legend of Drizzt. Then we can all play "don't die while using D&D mechanics" without all that pesky "character" stuff getting in the way.

Obviously people are different and get different things out of playing, so I don't want to yuck your yum. But to me there is a whole lot more that separates an rpg from a board game than just the inhabiting the character part. The open ended nature of play, the ongoing experience and the dialog across the screen are all more important to me than pretending to be a specific elf.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Obviously people are different and get different things out of playing, so I don't want to yuck your yum. But to me there is a whole lot more that separates an rpg from a board game than just the inhabiting the character part. The open ended nature of play, the ongoing experience and the dialog across the screen are all more important to me than pretending to be a specific elf.

Of course. But when people question my reasons for playing, I will speak on it and defend it.

To me, cycling through a half dozen characters just to keep "death" one of the most important parts of the game is a waste of my time. There are so many more interesting parts of D&D than "just surviving" in my opinion.

Others disagree, and that's cool. But if people aren't interested in my retort, don't quote me in your response.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't make a character for "me"... I make a character to experience life as a character.

You know where I'm coming from because we've had this discussion before.

If the character itself doesn't matter and all that does is me the player... then there's no reason to play a "roleplaying" game. I'll just play a board game. Heck, if any of us just wanted to play D&D as a survival exercise, we could all just play Wrath of Ashardalond or Legend of Drizzt. Then we can all play "don't die while using D&D mechanics" without all that pesky "character" stuff getting in the way.

Of course the character matters, but that doesn't mean they can't die. Sometimes that's how things go, and when a character dies you ultimately make a new one and the game goes on. You devote your energy into that new character, and they matter. Hopefully you remember the old one fondly; heck, if you're lucky they've left a mark on the campaign that persists after death.

Again (and again, and again), these questions are not binary.

 

[Voadam]

Does the party's story end when a character dies and is replaced (or revived)?

Of course not; and thus you-as-player still get to experience the story.

A TPK often does end a party's story though.

 

[Arilyn]

We are having very little death in our OSR games because of reaction rolls, and morale rolls on the part of the monsters. "Telegraph" the danger is a philosophy of the current old style play that we have adopted. This means players have signs of the kind of trouble up ahead before they get there and can decide on whether the risk is worth it. We have a lot fewer fights and more interesting situations, diplomacy and some good old fashioned gonzo weirdness that might alter your character without lethality.

We also don't do death at 0 hp cause we aren't interested in constant character churning. This is, of course, personal taste. Note, that if the characters voluntarily go into an extremely dangerous encounter, they know they are risking death and have made that choice.