Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 9087261" data-attributes="member: 22779">See, right there, that's going to MASSIVELY color how someone sees a game.&nbsp; The authors of the game are often the ones who are writing a lot of those adventures.&nbsp; At the very least, the company producing that game are producing that module (typically - yes, I realize that with OGL and whatnot, that's a lot fuzzier).&nbsp; Plus, the early modules were very much written with a pedagogical bent in mind - THIS is how the game is meant to be played.&nbsp; Keep on the Borderlands being a very prime example of this.&nbsp; But, even then, you look at early modules, there's often a pretty strong element of &quot;this is how you write adventures&quot; theme running throughout.I mean, good grief, what, twenty years (ish) of Dungeon Magazine straight up producing all sorts of advice on how to create adventures, plus Dragon magazine doing the same thing occasionally, it's not really a stretch to see the intentions of the game writers in the published adventures.Fair question.&nbsp; I'm not actually all that picky.&nbsp; I'll play just about anything.&nbsp; I would prefer if 5e D&amp;D was a lot less dependent on spells and casters to be honest.&nbsp; But, I can say that I prefer simple, streamlined rules over complex ones, however, I do not prefer &quot;rules absent&quot; systems where the DM is expected to make ad hoc rulings all the time.&nbsp; It's largely why I don't play older versions of D&amp;D anymore.&nbsp; Far, far too fiddly where they should be simple and nowhere near enough actual mechanics where there should be.5e works well enough, for what I want.&nbsp; But, my point in these kinds of threads is highlighting the point that [USER=7030755]@Malmuria[/USER] very clearly outlines.&nbsp; OSR games are a view of older versions of D&amp;D that just never applied to me.&nbsp; The presumptions that people are talking about in these threads never happened at my tables.&nbsp; No, we didn't play for fifteen years and only gain six levels.&nbsp; All the way through 1e and 2e, campaigns lasted about 1-2 years and ended about 10th or 12th level by that time.&nbsp; And it was far closer to 18 months to hit name level.&nbsp; No, we didn't have meat grinders where characters were permanently dying every week.&nbsp; We might have a character death every 2 to 3 levels and that was about it.&nbsp; No, we didn't rewrite the treasure tables, so, everyone played longsword fighters.&nbsp; No, we didn't roll 3d6 in order.&nbsp; Like, ever.&nbsp; So, most of the presumptions of play behind the OSR leave me entirely cold.&nbsp; It's why I never really got into it.&nbsp; I've looked at it from time to time and just bounced right off again and again because the presumptions behind the mechanics are just so alien to my experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 9087261, member: 22779"] See, right there, that's going to MASSIVELY color how someone sees a game. The authors of the game are often the ones who are writing a lot of those adventures. At the very least, the company producing that game are producing that module (typically - yes, I realize that with OGL and whatnot, that's a lot fuzzier). Plus, the early modules were very much written with a pedagogical bent in mind - THIS is how the game is meant to be played. Keep on the Borderlands being a very prime example of this. But, even then, you look at early modules, there's often a pretty strong element of "this is how you write adventures" theme running throughout. I mean, good grief, what, twenty years (ish) of Dungeon Magazine straight up producing all sorts of advice on how to create adventures, plus Dragon magazine doing the same thing occasionally, it's not really a stretch to see the intentions of the game writers in the published adventures. Fair question. I'm not actually all that picky. I'll play just about anything. I would prefer if 5e D&D was a lot less dependent on spells and casters to be honest. But, I can say that I prefer simple, streamlined rules over complex ones, however, I do not prefer "rules absent" systems where the DM is expected to make ad hoc rulings all the time. It's largely why I don't play older versions of D&D anymore. Far, far too fiddly where they should be simple and nowhere near enough actual mechanics where there should be. 5e works well enough, for what I want. But, my point in these kinds of threads is highlighting the point that [USER=7030755]@Malmuria[/USER] very clearly outlines. OSR games are a view of older versions of D&D that just never applied to me. The presumptions that people are talking about in these threads never happened at my tables. No, we didn't play for fifteen years and only gain six levels. All the way through 1e and 2e, campaigns lasted about 1-2 years and ended about 10th or 12th level by that time. And it was far closer to 18 months to hit name level. No, we didn't have meat grinders where characters were permanently dying every week. We might have a character death every 2 to 3 levels and that was about it. No, we didn't rewrite the treasure tables, so, everyone played longsword fighters. No, we didn't roll 3d6 in order. Like, ever. So, most of the presumptions of play behind the OSR leave me entirely cold. It's why I never really got into it. I've looked at it from time to time and just bounced right off again and again because the presumptions behind the mechanics are just so alien to my experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification