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

[MichaelSomething]

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.

If I wanted a game where my class determined what I could do, I'd go play 4E! OSR is about following the fiction of a character!

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

This hasn't been my experience playing OSR style games. You tend to use things like treasure tables for that reason. Whereas when I was playing a lot of 3E it was routine for players to have wishlists (but much of the OSR is a direct reaction to things like wish lists). Which isn't to say you can't shape these kinds of things to fit the characters, just in my experience it isn't really the norm to do so in an OSR campaign

 

[TwoSix]

If I wanted a game where my class determined what I could do, I'd go play 4E! OSR is about following the fiction of a character!

There aren't too many games where your class DOESN'T determine what you can do; that's sort of the point of a class system.

Maybe a very loose class system like in Whitehack or something. Or something with large amounts of customization within the class boundary like PF1.

 

[Minigiant]

If I wanted a game where my class determined what I could do, I'd go play 4E! OSR is about following the fiction of a character!

OSR tends to hard lock what your character can do by class. Hard lock you out of stuff.

Following the fiction in OSR is 90% the stuff not into the rules.

 

[bloodtide]

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

Well....no. I know I have the amazing ability to polarize people with no effort. But It sure looks Neutral to me.

One is a lite description and they just roll to find the hidden items...This one fits perfectly using the 5E rules.

One is a very detailed description and the player will take several minutes to slowly examine the area also in great detail to maybe find the hidden items......this one fits much more with OSR as most don't have "roll past" type rules anyway.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I know I have the amazing ability to polarize people with no effort.

You basically made a cartoon of one side of your "neutral" comparison.

If you are polarizing people on a regular basis, consider that maybe you're not coming across as neutrally as you believe.

 

[bloodtide]

You basically made a cartoon of one side of your "neutral" comparison.

If you are polarizing people on a regular basis, consider that maybe you're not coming across as neutrally as you believe.

I am always amazed at my own speech and writing abilities to get across thoughts and feelings even in just a couple words. It's a gift.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Following the fiction in OSR is 90% the stuff not into the rules.

Exactly! The fiction is too important to be left to the rules. An intelligent player can circumnavigate the rules to transform their character into what they want.

 

[Oligopsony]

Here’s an attempt at a slightly less tendentious version of the contrast, though I also prefer the first in most instances:

Version 1:
1) GM gives canned description of room, including telegraphing a trap.
2a) Players stupidly ignore the telegraphed clue, triggering it when they interact with it, or....
2b) Players asks questions about what they can see of the trap, GM answers, in loop.
3) Players describe an attempt to solve trap (or leave it alone); GM adjudicates success. (There may be specific rules for this or she may rely on "obviously succeeds, obviously fails, or flip a coin," but a plan that succeeds by common sense should succeed without requiring a roll.)

Version 2:
1) GM gives canned description of room, with or without telegraphed description of trap.
2) GM asks for perception checks, or players declare that they are searching for traps. Either triggers a roll based on character skill, resulting in...
3a) A party that doesn't notice the trap, likely triggering it, or
3b) A party that notices the trap, and GM description of the trap.
4) Players attempt to solve trap (or leave it alone); if they attempt, a relevant skill roll will be required, and this will determine whether the trap is disabled or goes off.

Version one (OSR) grounds players more directly in the fiction, forcing them to engage with it; version two ("modern") allows for more mechanical differentiation and expression of characters (which many people in this thread have cited for why they don't like OSR play!)

N.B. older versions of D&D do indeed feature rolling for traps and secret doors; games designed with contemporary OSR ideals (which, despite the acronym, really is a newer phenomenon) tend to not have this. FKR takes this in a more radical direction still, basically removing all rules abstractions. OSR is a playstyle not a rulesset, albeit a playstyle that's easier to implement with some rules than others!

N.B. there's also a whole spectrum in what gets abstracted to what degree. A very large number of tables resolve social encounters via 1 and combat encounters via 2, though of course there's no reason you couldn't flip that.

 

[Hussar]

If so, that’s a deviation from the playstyle (which, of course, is fine if that’s what you’re going for, but then we’re talking about something else.) Treasure tables are the standard way to handle this without illusionism or other GM fiat.

Yup.

Look at those tables. Look at the weighting of the rolls.

How many magic bec du corbin do you see on those tables?