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

[Oligopsony]

I don't know, I feel like part of thevethos of old school play (not necessarily the OSR) is that simulation is at least part of the equation. The guy who puts himself in front of the teeth and claws and spears is going to want the heavy armor. The dashing swashbuckler in a poets shirt is going to die

And the guy who’s dumb about when to be in the front, rather than exercising the better part of her valor, is dying too.

(Combat as sport vs combat as war, and all that.)

 

[Minigiant]

I think the bigger point is that in OSR games (especially ones that are heavily OD&D derived), the concept of build, and creating a character around a particular concept or vision, is heavily deprioritized. Having your character evolve through diegetic events and acquisition of items, even in ways you didn't initially intend, is the real goal.

That is my original point.
There is only one build for each class/race-as-class.

If you wanted to play one of those few supported "builds" (and rolled well enough to qualify), you were going to have a very fun time.
Everything else was cherries the DM could put on top in your treasure to make your time sweeter.

 

[Oligopsony]

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.

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.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The fact that multiple people think there's a one true way to play an OSR game, but all of them in conflict with one another, should tell you all you need to know.

It's a simple set of tools to make your own fun with. There is no more one true way to play an OSR game than there is with Lego.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean the subculture that self-consciously defines itself as OSR, whether or not an older edition of D&D is the ruleset (for instance, Mothership, which is neither old nor dnd, is a popular game in this sphere.) The Principia Apocrypha is the general canonical reference for this style.

Some people have used OSR in this thread to refer to old rules more generally; I don’t use it in that way.

That's what I was checking; if I'm going to disagree with someone, I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

(And as best I know, the systems out of that school are all D&D derived at some point, even if they've sprawled far afield since).

 

[Thomas Shey]

OSR is fun when you want to play one of those iconic character types the OSR game supports.

The big, dumb, brawny, heavy infantry, fighter never feels better to play when its the only type of fighter you can play.

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

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the bigger point is that in OSR games (especially ones that are heavily OD&D derived), the concept of build, and creating a character around a particular concept or vision, is heavily deprioritized. Having your character evolve through diegetic events and acquisition of items, even in ways you didn't initially intend, is the real goal.

Of course often "didn't intend" and "don't really want" can approach being synonymous. But that's why not everyone plays those games if given a choice.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Yeah, but being specific to the class is not the same as specific to the vision/idea. It was always easy enough to want to play a heavy duty archer in OD&D and find all the magic weapons in the world except a decent magic bow, for example. In fact it could be hard for that to come up even accidentally because the treasure tables had certain slants.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The fact that multiple people think there's a one true way to play an OSR game, but all of them in conflict with one another, should tell you all you need to know.

It's a simple set of tools to do your own sort of fun with. There is no more one true way to play an OSR game than there is with Lego.

That should be true; its too bad that there are a bit too many people within the OSR who, if you don't fit their idea of what its about, will try and yuck your yum at every opportunity.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That should be true; its too bad that there are a bit too many people within the OSR who, if you don't fit their idea of what its about, will try and yuck your yum at every opportunity.

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.)