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

[cbwjm]

I think there are some good options to spice up warrior classes in OSR editions.

You could add the various manoeuvres granted to fighters (lance attack, smash, set spear vs. charge, parry, disarm)

ACKS has bonuses for warrior classes, the cleave attack which let's you make another attack if you drop an enemy, if you keep getting kills, you can keep making attacks up to your level (essentially a simplified version of the old dnd make X attacks against creatures of less than a hit die). Warriors also gain a scaling damage bonus so that they can do what they do best, dish out damage.

OSE had a short article with a half dozen specialisations for fighters, since they aren't honestly that interesting if you can play a barbarian, ranger, or paladin. You get 3 as you level, things like cleave, weapon specialisation, defender (like the 4e marking), sword and dagger fighting, etc.

Various OSR games, or even the original games, have things you can do in combat over and above "I attack" or have ways of making the fighter more badass when they do attack. I'd probably mix and match all of the above if I was running an OSE game.

 

[Reynard]

There's nothing stopping a DM from redoing and expanding those tables (which, let's face it, are woefully inadequate when it comes to weapons and armour).

Plus making random tables is fun.

 

[mamba]

But the "how" is directly informated by the "what" of "what can I do", i.e.: what are my capabilities/abilities. Like, what actually differentiates me from another character besides just our str, dex, con, int, wis, and cha? if the "now" is only what matters in OSR, why have levels at all?

You basically get better at what you are already doing, the biggest change is new spells, but to me that is basically still true in 5e, just not as drastically (on the melee side)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Wait. "Old School" is specifically open to all older games.

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.

Old School Renaissance (or Revival) refers to a rebirth. A revival. The thing being revived was old school D&D, which had been left behind by WotC and was "dead" as a published game. RuneQuest wasn't dead and abandoned by the publisher. Neither was Traveller.

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.

Even those of us who think that OSR most properly refers to D&D and D&D-likes accord due respect to other Old School games.

I don't doubt you do, but I promise you that's far from universal. I'm on an Old School FB group where the moderators have to hose down people getting soggy about non-D&D discussion fairly regularly (some of them are new and possibly just confused, but some are pretty clearly resentful about anything else being discussed, 40 years old or not).

 

[Malmuria]

I agree with the sentiment but in all honesty I've never once used random treasure tables. Instead I put treasure in that makes sense for the creatures/occupants/foes to have, without regard for what particular characters might find said treasure. When I come up with the adventure, even if it's for a specific party or group, I've no idea whether any given character will still be around when the party gets to said adventure as characters die, retire, split off and form different parties, parties recruit new members, and so on.

And yes, this means they often get magic stuff they simply can't use, so they sell it off when back in town.

When I ran Winter's Daughter I had a bit of a revelation. There are these magical faerie mushrooms that the characters can take that have
random effects. I loved the randomness it led to some great moments later.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Certainly by mid-levels, I think spell lists on the PC sheet are at least as important as equipment. (Except perhaps magical equipment that often gives access to those spell lists!)

 

[Malmuria]

Certainly by mid-levels, I think spell lists on the PC sheet are at least as important as equipment. (Except perhaps magical equipment that often gives access to those spell lists!)

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.

 

[haakon1]

Yeah, OSR style play tends the de-emphasize character builds, and can be satisfactorily played with zero mechanical differentiation between characters whatever.

Sounds like AD&D 1e non-spellcasters. Despite being similar, somehow each felt unique.

 

[haakon1]

That didn't make it any less dull. Barring GM intervention, your real choices as an OD&D Fighting man added up to 1) Weapon, and 2) Target. As far as I'm concerned, that's simply not enough.

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.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

I've been DMing two fighters in my ongoing campaign for well over a decade and, mechanically, they've never been dramatically different in any of the systems we've run them in (3E, then Castles & Crusades, then 5E) but they've been wildly different characters in their personalities and backstories and both very archetypal fighters, just in dramatically different ways. (Loyal soldier of the empire versus violent bruiser.)

And yeah, neither player has ever pined for their character to get more of the spotlight and, in fact, tend to dance away from it when I try to give them more screen time, when I worry that they need more focus.

In contrast, I have two different bards in two different games who would happily talk the ears off a statue, given a chance. One of them, in particular, I have to make sure I take the spotlight off him periodically. (The always on initiative of Shadowdark seems to help, if a recent game is any indication.)

It takes all sorts of players.