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

[Micah Sweet]

All I said was that it wasn't new.

As I said, the public profile of this kind of stuff has increased significantly since WotC took over. That  is new.

 

[haakon1]

For me (AD&D):

• I like discovering most of my character's backstory through play. (Levels 1-3)
• Knowing that not every conflict must be a fight. Many are, but some are beyond us and some situations can be talked through. (Reaction table)
• Some resource management. The more gear you take in the less treasure you take out. This also means the less gear you take in the more you rely on your spellcasters to solve some issues. I don't need to count every arrow unless it becomes germane to the situation.
• Different stages of adventuring. The domain game is an interesting break from standard adventuring.
• I appreciate limitations and believe that breeds creativity. There is no guarantees that I will have a certain spell or magic item. However, even then, there are ways around that through magic research, commissioning items, or finding rumors of where to find things.
• There are fewer hit points / damage done. Combats seem to last the same amount of time on average regardless (2-5 rounds). That's pretty much purely aesthetic, I suppose.

I like all that. I resource management and RP, sneaking, or running away over fight-everything play styles.

I even track arrows. Big fighter in my game just shot down a dragon in my game with only 6 arrows left … and he’ll have other things to fight before he gets home. The dragon did say “Parlay?” in Draconic, but they guy with first init decided to shoot first, ignoring the cleric who wanted to talk.

I like combats in 2-5 round range.

But I’m doing all this in 3.5e, Core Rules only - I see that as the last iteration of AD&D. Others opinions obviously vary, but most of the hate at 3x seems to be about the non-Core splatbooks or high level play. For me, 1st-10th level is the sweet part of every edition, when indeed resources are limited and combat doesn’t need to be against uber stuff to be dangerous.

 

[Erik Alt]

I love "old school" style because I never know if my character is gouing to die or become an important person in the world. The uncertainty is the interesting bit, not knowing what will happen.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I love "old school" style because I never know if my character is gouing to die or become an important person in the world. The uncertainty is the interesting bit, not knowing what will happen.

Yeah, that's a wonderful part of that style of play. Its sad to me that so many modern gamers seem to resist that uncertainty, and just want to play out  how it happens, not  if.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yeah, that's a wonderful part of that style of play. Its sad to me that so many modern gamers seem to resist that uncertainty, and just want to play out  how it happens, not  if.

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.

Every once in a while? Sure, no problem. The main side plot of every single adventure in every single campaign? No thank you.

 

[Reynard]

I love "old school" style because I never know if my character is gouing to die or become an important person in the world. The uncertainty is the interesting bit, not knowing what will happen.

Is that really not a thing in modern play? Do we have any reliable information to posit that modern games ensure outcomes?

I know many 5E GMs on these boards that will swear by the potential deadliness of 5e.

 

[Reynard]

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.

Every once in a while? Sure, no problem. The main side plot of every single adventure in every single campaign? No thank you.

Yeah."Stories" as they relate to rpg campaigns are at least 40 years old (Hickman revolution) and I can't say I have seen any real evidence that modern gamers are more or less story focused than that era.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Every once in a while? Sure, no problem. The main side plot of every single adventure in every single campaign? No thank you.

To me, adventure in a D&D-like setting without the reasonable possibility of death is completely meaningless.

'Course, there're other schools of thought.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Is that really not a thing in modern play? Do we have any reliable information to posit that modern games ensure outcomes?

I know many 5E GMs on these boards that will swear by the potential deadliness of 5e.

I've never really bought into that belief in regards to 5e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah."Stories" as they relate to rpg campaigns are at least 40 years old (Hickman revolution) and I can't say I have seen any real evidence that modern gamers are more or less story focused than that era.

I grew up on BECMI and 1e style play. You do your best, but success (or even closure) isn't assumed.