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

[Thomas Shey]

It's hard to escape those people in gaming or in regular life. (A particularly noxious breed likes to chase women around the internet with the clothes, hairstyles and make-up they're not "supposed" to wear after ages 30, 40, 50, 60 and presumably 70.)

Sure. But if people sometimes roll their eyes at mention of the OSR, those people are pretty likely to be why. While I don't think of it with the "R" attached (because that seems to be most strongly attached to the early-D&D-revivalist part) I tend to think of myself as something of an Old School proponent, but I kind of hate to refer to myself that way sometimes because of the company that it has me keep.

 

[Malmuria]

Sort of. Because, frankly, those diegetic events and acquisitions of items are often suspiciously specific to the classes being played. As in, funnily enough that fighter will always find magic armor and magic shield and a magic weapon. And a few levels later, will find slightly more powerful versions of those same armor, shield and weapon. And a little later, slightly more powerful versions yet again.

The fighter in my OSE game found...cursed armor.

 

[Malmuria]

I mentioned it above, but I think the key thing is that the solution is not on your character sheet. Now granted, you do have stuff on your character sheet, mostly equipment, that can help you. But otherwise you need to engage with the environment in conversation with the GM. And the role of the GM is to be a "referee" and play the world honestly. This is often accomplished through randomness (including randomly rolling for treasure)

 

[Minigiant]

Dunno, there. The OD&D version of that felt worse than latter ones to me because there was so little to do.

That's the point.

The classes did the little they were designed to do rather well to very well depending on the game.

An XYZ was good at A, B and C. If you wanted to do A, B, & C, your time as a XYZ was great.
Do not look to be good at B, D, and K.

 

[TwoSix]

Sort of. Because, frankly, those diegetic events and acquisitions of items are often suspiciously specific to the classes being played. As in, funnily enough that fighter will always find magic armor and magic shield and a magic weapon. And a few levels later, will find slightly more powerful versions of those same armor, shield and weapon. And a little later, slightly more powerful versions yet again.

Yea, but that seems more just a result of normal treasure tables, and the natural desire to funnel items to the class(es) that can best use them.

That fighter might also end up getting reincarnated into a pegasus. Who knows?

 

[TwoSix]

That's the point.

The classes did the little they were designed to do rather well to very well depending on the game.

An XYZ was good at A, B and C. If you wanted to do A, B, & C, your time as a XYZ was great.
Do not look to be good at B, D, and K.

I mean, those restrictions are almost certainly why there was a flood of alternative rulesets and houserules once D&D was released, most of which moved in the direction of giving more power to specify character concepts to the players.

There's a general desire to build characters with more specificity towards a particular vision, which is why RPGs with more in-depth character building options are more popular than, say, roguelikes. But that doesn't mean roguelikes don't have their own charm!

 

[bloodtide]

What a weird way to start a post that is 100% badwrongfunning.

I was TRYING to make the point that there is NOTHING WRONG with either way of doing it. They are just DIFFERENT

.

False binary. I've done a lot of the former almost entirely in 5E. I don't get posts like this, truly. You make up these weird scenarios that are obviously 1.) Fake and 2.) Clearly moralized and then act like you're just stating some honest opinion on reality.

The main reason the OSR is hamstrung is because of stuff like this. Instead of reaching across the isle to understand another style of play, you just make up stuff to justify an irrational disrespect for it.

Um...wait....what "side" do you think I'm on?

As always, the balance and neutrality of your posts and willingness to consider the arguments of both sides continues to astonish. Kudos, sir.

Odd...though my post was neutral. One style is X, one style is Y.

 

[Reynard]

Odd...though my post was neutral. One style is X, one style is Y.

You must be able to recognize that the way you wrote it absolutely did not feel neutral.

 

[Minigiant]

I mean, those restrictions are almost certainly why there was a flood of alternative rulesets and houserules once D&D was released, most of which moved in the direction of giving more power to specify character concepts to the players.

There's a general desire to build characters with more specificity towards a particular vision, which is why RPGs with more in-depth character building options are more popular than, say, roguelikes. But that doesn't mean roguelikes don't have their own charm!

I said it have its charm.

And if you want to play one of the intended archetypes, you have the full force of the designer's work powering making that fantasy happen.
Everyone else is hoping the allowed homebrew, houserules , or alt-rules is not bunk.

Or in MTG terms, OSR is Heaven for Spikes and Timmies.

 

[TwoSix]

I said it have its charm.

And if you want to play one of the intended archetypes, you have the full force of the designer's work powering making that fantasy happen.
Everyone else is hoping the allowed homebrew, houserules , or alt-rules is not bunk.

Or in MTG terms, OSR is Heaven for Spikes and Timmies.

Oh, for sure. But if I'm playing in an old-school game, I'm going to lean into what it does well.

Just like in 3.5, I played wizards, clerics, and druids, because I know that's what the system did well; playing a fighter or a monk was just asking for frustration.