Quote from: blackstone on December 10, 2024, 08:35:26 AM

Quote from: jeff37923 on December 10, 2024, 07:45:36 AM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on December 10, 2024, 07:38:13 AMThe real question is better for whom? I have enjoyed the classic OSR style game since 1980. Even so, in my younger days I was always trying new systems, and looking for the perfect amount of crunch that would handle everything. Now that I am older, I appreciate the rules light approach even more than ever. So personally, the OSR style game is better for me. Others have their own journey to discover what works best for them.

My answer is similar. My stopping point for "official" D&D is 3.x, nothing afterwards interests me. Even then, I mostly use 3.x for inspiration towards OSR and solo play.

Of course, that's only for D&D type games. Traveller still rocks my worlds in all its myriad ways, as does Mekton and Cyberpunk. The only Star Wars that does it for me is d6 Star Wars, I can't stand other versions.

3e was designed to not be backward compatible and force you to buy all new product. From where I was, people were unloading their older stuff so they could buy the new shiny. I couldn't bear the thought of parting with my older editions, let alone buying all new stuff just so I can play with the cool kids.
 

For me, it was to make a simple codified mechanic that allowed you to take it and spin it off into new directions. You had non-3.X games out there using d20; however, they were overshadowed by other products that were more Dungeon & Dragons but extra. I created many mini-games using the core d20 mechanics without feats and created flexible games in other genres.

You are right; however, for those who only played D&D, it did force you to play Pokemon and have to get them all. When you toss in the 3PP releases, it becomes nearly impossible to stay current.

5E vs OSR as a metaphor

5E is finishing a Crossword puzzle by rolling a d20 for each word. A 12+ you are given the correct word. If you roll under you can roll again after a 10 minute rest. Yeah, finished the puzzle adn leveled-up in record time!

OSR is actually figuring out each word in the crossword puzzle.

As far as the OSR I think it's a bit of both, but IMHO a huge swathe of "OSR" is fanciful and based on forum posts, not how people actually played "back in the day" so it comes off more like rose-tinted goggles from people who never actually played in the old days trying to tell everyone how they "should" be playing.

Quote from: Nobleshield on December 10, 2024, 11:43:57 AMAs far as the OSR I think it's a bit of both, but IMHO a huge swathe of "OSR" is fanciful and based on forum posts, not how people actually played "back in the day" so it comes off more like rose-tinted goggles from people who never actually played in the old days trying to tell everyone how they "should" be playing.

On the other hand, there are plentiful numbers on social media now that were either not alive or not playing then, telling long time players that played "back in the day" that it wasn't that way at all.

Quote from: Lynn on December 10, 2024, 12:20:57 PM

Quote from: Nobleshield on December 10, 2024, 11:43:57 AMAs far as the OSR I think it's a bit of both, but IMHO a huge swathe of "OSR" is fanciful and based on forum posts, not how people actually played "back in the day" so it comes off more like rose-tinted goggles from people who never actually played in the old days trying to tell everyone how they "should" be playing.

On the other hand, there are plentiful numbers on social media now that were either not alive or not playing then, telling long time players that played "back in the day" that it wasn't that way at all.

I've seen a lot more of the former than the latter, especially with the more vehement members of the OSR community...

Quote from: weirdguy564 on December 10, 2024, 06:41:15 AMYes, the OSR is better to me.

I prefer rules light.  I don't need rules on how fast it takes to draw a sword, at night, in the rain, left handed.

Also, no, it's not better.  I don't like THAC-0 or descending armor class, and I do like weapon and armor traits from 5E.

My games tend to be hybrids.  They're games made out of the best ideas that have survived to today, without any bloat. There are lots of games to pick from.  None of my favorites are truly D&D anymore. 

haha, yep THIS. But there's never a perfect system is there. I've been searching for that for 40 years.

Quote from: Lynn on December 10, 2024, 12:20:57 PM

Quote from: Nobleshield on December 10, 2024, 11:43:57 AMAs far as the OSR I think it's a bit of both, but IMHO a huge swathe of "OSR" is fanciful and based on forum posts, not how people actually played "back in the day" so it comes off more like rose-tinted goggles from people who never actually played in the old days trying to tell everyone how they "should" be playing.

On the other hand, there are plentiful numbers on social media now that were either not alive or not playing then, telling long time players that played "back in the day" that it wasn't that way at all.

Not sure who these people are. Names?

I think the desire for simplicity is a big part of it.
Ive played 5e for 6 years & still not fluent with 1/2 of it & I only used PHB & XGE

With OSR DMs get an easier & more fun ride & therefore so do players.

A lot of OSR people are not old enough for the Nostalgia, so its not that.
Ive witnessed brand new RPG players play 5e & then drop it for OSR after a year.

I played D&D in 1983. But I never really had a desire to go back.
OSR is using modern lessons learned & rules elegance to make something simple & challenging.

The game challenge is being drained from modern games through power-creep & bloat.
Its an essential aspect of games to Pick A at the expense of B.
You can be fast & weak, or slow & strong.
5e is fast & strong & magic & more & extra & bonus.

Greetings!

Oh yes, I much prefer the OSR. I like 5E to a point--original or basic 5E, until WOTC started getting stupid. Tasha's? Mordenkainen? I forgot. There was one last decent supplement full of options, and then 5E started this rapid decline into the sewer.

So, politically, ideologically, with WOTC going full Woke, the system became hopelessly corrupted and disgusting. However, even in the early days of 5E, there were some mechanical, dynamics and philosophical base problems, such as the "Superhero" dynamic presented for the Player Characters; the multiple safety nets to prevent Player Character Death; Gimped Monsters; ubiquitous pushing of spells and ever more uber-magic in everything, and probably a few more that I can't think of right now.

All of that could be dealt with by a strong DM; using various "Optional Rules"--that are actually, yes, in the 5E DM's Guide, and having the capacity to SAY NO to various game elements; and, be willing to do the work of creating some tailored subsystems unique to your campaign, that pushed against the prevailing 5E meta-dynamic. Going through that work, and 5E was a solid game. *Laughing*

Long-time members here know that I have been a strong fan of 5E D&D, sincerely. 5E is a strong system, and very fun, but having said that, if you have a campaign world that stands against a solid section of 5E dynamics, then there is definitely work required of the DM to make 5E fit properly. 5E has always had some flaws and problems.

When I, personally, took stock of that needed work to make 5E run properly for my campaign world, and THEN got smashed again and again by WOTC with the stupid Woke BS, it simply became too much. Too much mechanical and dynamic flaws; and far too much Woke politics; then all that served up with even more gross, insulting marketing and executive interviews provided by WOTC, scandals, and more. I became reconnected to my OSR roots through Shadowdark, and have never looked back.

Simplicity, modularity, a system that doesn't have half a dozen hardwired dynamics that fight against you every step of the way, quick, simple rules, quick, simple, and brutal mechanics. SPEED. Shadowdark is easy and fun to create characters, as well as being easy and FUN to DM. Other OSR games embrace some similar philosophies and mechanics structure. The OSR is refreshing, quick, brutal, and fun, all without huge amounts of mechanical work, and definitely not front-loaded and swimming in Woke BS.

Think about this key, campaign-changing dynamic: Player Characters are vulnerable at Level 1. At 5th Level, Player Characters are still vulnerable. Even at HIGHER levels, the Player Characters remain fundamentally vulnerable, possess weaknesses, and are definitely not near-immortal superheroes. That built-in fragility, that built-in weakness of normal mortality, echoes and ripples throughout the entire game system and campaign game play like a sub-surface tidal wave of epic strength and scope. It powerfully influences character creation, everyday adventuring, character development, encounter design, stocking dungeons and creating adventures entirely. The scope of influence is genuinely vast, and game-changing.

Finally, simply, I prefer using a OSR system that I don't have to constantly fight against, kicking and dragging, to make the whole thing work in my campaign world of Thandor.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on December 10, 2024, 01:58:32 PMToo much mechanical and dynamic flaws

Did these "mechanical and dynamic flaws" exist from the early days of 5e, or were they pushed into being through later products? Can you give examples?

Quote from: Man at Arms on December 10, 2024, 01:11:34 AMWhy do those of us who appreciate the old ways, like that style of gaming better?

How can it be well explained, in 100 words or less?

I do appreciate those old ways, and incorporate many of them into my own games, even though OSR games are not my very first choice in systems. (I would certainly enjoy running an RC or ACKS game, given the right players.)

You can't fully explain it, in any amount of words, because a great deal of it is simply magic.  It's when the chemistry of the group and setting come together in ways that are surprising and evocative all outside reason of what the rules would suggest is possible. Now, that can happen with any game, but it is much more likely to happen in relatively simple rules run in an old-school manner.  It's easy to recognize in avoiding its opposite, which is when players are looking at character sheets for buttons to push and GMs are looking up sage advice instead of both groups envisioning the world and the GM making a judgment call.

The rules are a tool for the GM to run the game, not the game. Naturally, every GM has their own set of strengths and weaknesses, preference, setting ideals, etc. such that some rules will be a better fit than others.  And don't discount simple but strong personal tastes. 

As for nostalgia, that's the weak dismissal of the ignorant. I have yet to meet a single person that plays any game out of nostalgia.  Not one.  I've met people that were nostalgic for a feeling from a game, or for the joy of playing a game with a group of people.  I've met people that said playing game Z reminded them favorably of what it was like to play game X back in the day.  But that's just it, people have nostalgia for experiences, not tools.  If a tool provide that experience, they'll keep using it.  If it doesn't, they'll drop it in a heartbeat.  That's not to be confused with inertia in using something, which is very real. 

If by OSR you mean games that emulate a style before, say, Vampire was released, then yes they're better. I think it's because they were designed (DESIGNED!) to be actual games, not exercises in puffery and wankery. You play AD&D with your buddies to kill orcs, steal their stuff, and fuck the king's daughter, Conan style. Once you start down the path of adding things that make it not a game anymore, it becomes tiresome bullshit. Also, older games used to be DESIGNED to fit a specific genre or license or whatever. WEG Star Wars is the prototypical example of a game that was made so you can play SW characters. Newer versions of SW games shoehorn the lore into an existing framework, and it doesn't always make sense or enable play that resembles the movies. I'm not interested in playing gay sith lord wannabees, I want to play smugglers and pirates and bounty hunters and jedi. Amber is another good example: just how in the royal fuck would you even play Amber with a different system? I mean, I supposed you could use GURPS and quantify every thing into points and whatever, but it's just a hell of a lot easier to use the diceless system created specifically for Corwin's saga and get around to shadow walking and backstabbing siblings.

Rant over. It's better. "Nostalgia" is just an insult jealous people use because their games aren't even games anymore.

Quote from: Brad on December 10, 2024, 03:23:55 PMWEG Star Wars is the prototypical example of a game that was made so you can play SW characters. Newer versions of SW games shoehorn the lore into an existing framework

Wasn't the WEG D6 system designed to play Ghostbusters and then Star Wars was showhorned into that existing framework?

Quote from: blackstone on December 10, 2024, 08:37:37 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on December 10, 2024, 08:30:53 AMThat said, I do find there is a lot of mythmaking about the how the game used to be played, by both old hands and new converts.

As someone who's been playing since 1981, I'd like to hear what "myths" have developed in your opinion.

A few I have seen trotted about by the OSR, Monard and a few others...

HUGE one is "Older editions were ONLY about combat because there arent any social rules!" and variants thereof. Storygamers, Forgeites and so one loved to toss that one around.

Another huge one is "Players have to kill everything to advance!" This was not true even in OD&D and has gotten less true as each edition came out.

"AD&D statted out HITLER!!!" False too. The book just used him as a good example of how charisma is not appearance.

"AD&D is SEXIST because women cant reach the same stats as men!!!" also false. The stat cap on humans only effected Fighter and think Paladins and Rangers, and the cap was for exceptional STR and fairly generous. And through various means anyone could exceed that cap. Dont have the books handy but pretty sure some of the demi-human races had some stat caps too.

"Orcs in D&D are ALL evil!" False right out the gate. OD&D clearly notes orcs could be neutral or chaotic and AD&D notes that alignment listed is not an absolute. Merely the most common outlook.

And depressingly more. The latest bit of OSR retardation is "Gary meant the game to be played 1:1 time!!!"

Of course it's better. Because it uses rulings not rules, it's based on player skill not character skill, it's heroic not superheroic, and there is no game balance.

https://friendorfoe.com/d/Old%20School%20Primer.pdf