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

[haakon1]

It's a question of focus.

If your focus as player is first and foremost on mechanically advancing your character through level-ups, new powers, feats, etc. you're probably much better served by any of the WotC D&D versions as that's what they do.

In old-school gaming, at least the way I see it, advancement is a somewhat secondary consideration. Sure you level up now and then but there might not be much mechanical impact (and even less in the eyes of the player, as the nuts-and-bolts mechanics are largely kept DM-side), and therefore it's not as much of a focus. Instead, the focus is more on the here-and-now in the fiction - how are we gonna get into that castle, how are we gonna knock off that giant, how are we gonna get all this loot back to town - rather than on the broader metagame of mechanical character advancement.

Another perfect post Lanefan.

I’d point out that which system you use doesn’t really matter for this definition of Old School. You could probably work into this feel in many game systems. Myself, I’m always going for “1st Edition Feel, 3rd Edition Rules” in running my 3.5e campaigns with classic 1e & Basic modules.

 

[Lanefan]

Another perfect post Lanefan.

I’d point out that which system you use doesn’t really matter for this definition of Old School. You could probably work into this feel in many game systems. Myself, I’m always going for “1st Edition Feel, 3rd Edition Rules” in running my 3.5e campaigns with classic 1e & Basic modules.

Sounds good; but in 3.xe to get the "feel" I'm after, where levelling up is an occasional side effect of play, you'd have to dramatically slow down the level-advance rate.

And, having seen this tried in 3e, I've also seen that doing so has some knock-on effects that can make life miserable for the DM. The main one is that the wealth-by-level guidelines go right out the window.

 

[Mannahnin]

But that it was. But I've seen numerous cases of people who only think that applies to old editions of D&D, retroclones or neo-reworks too. Note how OSRIC was originally named; the same thought process goes on with a non-trivial number of fants.

I draw the distinction of OS vs OSR; older games in general vs the movement of the Old School Renaissance, which was specifically centered on D&D, but has evolved in multiple directions.

I'll direct you to FASERIP and its kin. It was, by licensing necessity, just as dead as the others. So were Top Secret and the Conan game (both of which have modern extent retroclones), They still weren't D&D, nor were they particularly rules-light.

I don't think I made any statements about rules-light, and certainly rules-light isn't anything I think is a requirement for OS or OSR. AD&D is not rules light. And other Old School games like Chivalry & Sorcery or RuneQuest certainly aren't.

Fair point about Top Secret and FASERIP. I haven't seen a renaissance of interest in and analysis of them, but certainly at least some discussion, and if folks are cloning them (which I knew of re: FASERIP), that certainly sounds like they should be part of the movement.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Me, I liked playing AD&D 1e Fighters (and Clerics and Paladins). I think it’s a fun role to play. I also like fullback in soccer, relief pitcher in baseball, and lineman in football . Not everyone likes the glory stuff - striker and goalie, slugger and starter, quarterback. Fighters can have as much personality as wizard, and it takes a team, especially in Old School D&D.

It has nothing to do with glory. It has to do with interest. In games where its supported, I'm the guy who plays sword-and-board fighters--but I like having some decisions to make that actually matter.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I draw the distinction of OS vs OSR; older games in general vs the movement of the Old School Renaissance, which was specifically centered on D&D, but has evolved in multiple directions.

Like I said, if more people did I'd be less irritable about it.

I don't think I made any statements about rules-light, and certainly rules-light isn't anything I think is a requirement for OS or OSR. AD&D is not rules light. And other Old School games like Chivalry & Sorcery or RuneQuest certainly aren't.

There's an awfully strong "rulings not rules" element in most of the OSR people I've hit.

(And I entirely agree with your point, but there's still the assumption in an awful lot of people that having actual rules is a defect).

Fair point about Top Secret and FASERIP. I haven't seen a renaissance of interest in and analysis of them, but certainly at least some discussion, and if folks are cloning them (which I knew of re: FASERIP), that certainly sounds like they should be part of the movement.

I'm not sure about Top Secret, but there's certainly a non-trivial contingent of FASERIP fans among superhero gamers (not one of them because the absolute last place I want mandatory random character gen is in a superhero game, but not everyone agrees).

 

[Reynard]

It has nothing to do with glory. It has to do with interest. In games where its supported, I'm the guy who plays sword-and-board fighters--but I like having some decisions to make that actually matter.

Assuming that the OSR GM is doing their job, there are always interesting decisions to make because the tactics that characters use in OSR battles are supposed to be paramount. They are more important than class abilities, and while spells are very powerful in old school games they are an extremely limited resource.

When people lament that martials are less fun or interesting, it usually ends up being because a) the penalties intended to balance casters are being ignored, and b) fights are constructed to be static toe to toes hacking. I think the limited mechanical options of old school games helps avoid the latter, at least.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Assuming that the OSR GM is doing their job, there are always interesting decisions to make because the tactics that characters use in OSR battles are supposed to be paramount. They are more important than class abilities, and while spells are very powerful in old school games they are an extremely limited resource.

I should have clarified, given the context of this thread, that I don't consider "This only does any good if the GM thinks it does" to be satisfactory.

When people lament that martials are less fun or interesting, it usually ends up being because a) the penalties intended to balance casters are being ignored, and b) fights are constructed to be static toe to toes hacking. I think the limited mechanical options of old school games helps avoid the latter, at least.

Wasn't in '75. One of the two biggest reasons I got out of OD&D is expressed my opinion about all the meaningful options I had then.

 

[Reynard]

I should have clarified, given the context of this thread, that I don't consider "This only does any good if the GM thinks it does" to be satisfactory.

I think this idea is worth discussing even outside the confines of the OSR so I am going start a separate thread.

 

[TwoSix]

Spells certainly, but it does feel that when a good answer is on your character sheet (like a Knock spell), it is a rare moment and opportunity, its use carefully considered. This plays into the risk/reward structure. If you lose that (e.g. at high level play) then the OSR style becomes less interesting for me. This is why I like the Into the Odd-derived games, which magic is always part of your inventory and always goes away eventually with use.

I absolutely think the playloop for OD&D style pure dungeon crawls would be better if special abilities, like magic, were always consumables.

 

[Shardstone]

Wondering why there isn't a huge OSR book of random battlefield assets, like barrles, explosives, hazards, etc. Don't even need real mechanics for these, since its OSR, just ideas categorized properly to let one quickly construct a random encounter.

Dungeon builders almost do this, but usually are pretty uninspired with the stuff they put in rooms that aren't traps. If you're going to make a game that's based on improved use of assets, give me more tools to generate assets.