Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 7768975" data-attributes="member: 85555">Interesting article. I think it is a good topic for discussion. I would describe my style as pretty old school inspired (I just find the OSR approach to adventure and setting works well for my needs as a GM--but not afraid to inject other elements). I'd say I take a blended approach. I am fine having more dramatic elements in play, but I also like the reliability of the old school tools. I don't see these things as mutually exclusive. If I had a quibble, it would be that I don't think the hobby is divided neatly into old school and new school. I think you have a mainstream of the hobby, and a bunch of alternative approaches (of which OSR is one). But I don't see something like 5E, for example, as 'new school'. I see it as a compromise meant to appeal to as many styles as possible, including old school GMs (and I know many old school GMs who happily use the system). But you really can categorize things any number of ways so I am probably just being picky in my quibble. Just my thoughts on what Old School and OSR are all about. I think most people who use the term Old School these days, are talking about the OSR rather than the original intent of the white box or something. My impression of people who are old school, rather than OSR, is they are not particularly concerned with some of the distinctions being made in these debates, since so much of that predates a lot of what we are talking about (I've met plenty of old school GMs who use the word 'story' for example, but they mean it in an entirely different way than most online discussion handles the term).In terms of OSR play and style, I think failure being on the table is an important feature. Character death is also a possibility. Not knowing the destination or desired outcome in advance is another. Emulation a setting or environment is important (whether that is a campaign world or a dungeon). I saw some people mention simulation in this regard, I don't think many OSR GMs are trying to simulate reality. They're not interested in simulating real world physics, as much as they are interested in creating and sustaining a campaign that feels like a real living world (even if that world includes genre elements). That doesn't mean there are not concessions to entertainment and the fact that it is a game. It just means the world tends to be logically consistent, it has a geography that feels real and it is inhabited by people who are intended to behave with their own motivations and goals. But it isn't limited to these things. OSR is also about using adventure models/structures and tools that work in play. It is about what works at the table. The dungeon works, so it is a big feature of OSR. Encounter tables work, so they are a big feature. If you look at a lot of OSR blogs and online discussions, utility is a big part of it. I think there are other aspects though. The aesthetics of OSR are a bit different than mainstream play. These discussions are not zero sum games though where its 'one style to rule them all'. If the OSR approach doesn't appeal to you, there is little point in me trying to convince you to take an interest in it. If you find something useful about it, then by all means take what you can and apply it to your table. And this is just my impression of the style. Others may have different views.</blockquote>

Verification