Quote from: blackstone on December 10, 2024, 12:25:30 PM

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?

Scroll up, that's why I responded.

I don't bother taking names. I used to engage now and then over on Enworld but dialed it back significantly in part because of it.

No it's not objectively better, although there's been a lot of crap published in later years.

I don't really agree with those who think newer games are generally more complicated though; 1st edition AD&D is actually a bit of a Byzantine mess for a first-time reader.

In AD&D you got incrementally better at your core (more spells, better to hit, etc). In 5E you get little abilities each level that make things more and more complex. I found 5E okay for levels 1-5, after that I found it tedious as the PCs became super-heroes.

Quote from: Man at Arms on December 10, 2024, 01:11:34 AMIs it Nostalgia, or is the OSR genuinely better?

Why 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?

The OSR was never about a particular style of gaming. What it was about was what one can do with classic edition mechanics and themes. Gonzo, Sandbox campaigns, and Gygaxian Fantasy were already distinct creative visions for what one can do with the material that pre-existed the release of OSRIC and Basic Fantasy.

The OSR is what it is because of the old military adage that while soldiers win battles, logistics win wars. Many excellent RPGs, including various editions of D&D, succeed because of the creative brilliance of their authors or the company writing them. The OSR got a foothold because of the quality of the classic edition mechanics and nostalgia. But that was the starting point. The key to the OSR's success was the logistics behind it.

This starts with the legal "hack" that resulted in OSRIC and Basic Fantasy. It was easily reproducible using existing open content under open licenses resulting in a multitude of creative visions and creative agendas.

Next because of the extensive use of open content under open licenses meant that people could pursue creative visions at whatever level of involvement they had the time and resources for. If all an author was interested in was making adventures or setting that was a doable goal.

The above two meant the creative cost to realize one's vision dropped significantly.

All of this occurred with the rise of print-on-demand and digital distribution using the internet. This meant the cost of distribution and sales drastically dropped.

All three factors means very quickly anything that could be done with classic edition mechanics and themes could be tried and released. Moreover, multiple attempts could and did occur, resulting in at least one succeeding commercially and/or creatively.

The OSR is unique in that it is one of the few RPG niches not dominated by a single individual or company's creative vision. For example, after a few years, Goblinoid Games wasn't doing much with Labyrinth Lord, a retro-clone of B/X D&D. Then the Necrotic Gnome team started doing their thing with Old School Essentials, which enjoyed creative and commercial success.

The OSR is in a constant creative ferment, with people dropping in and out and sometimes back in again. This has resulted in the OSR as a whole carving out a solid niche of it own in the industry and the hobby and why it is still going strong after nearly 20 years.

It occurred to me that the current run of classic D&D under the OSR umbrella (2006 to present) is poised to match the initial run of classic D&D (1974 to 1999)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 11, 2024, 12:38:01 AMOf 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

I'd add one thing to this: it also naturally incentivizes players to ACTUALLY DO THINGS. Modern D&D doesn't because everything is regulated by some rule or abstraction. Advancement in OSR (up to 2e) rewards you for actually going out and doing stuff rather than being spoon fed content passively.

Quote from: tenbones on December 11, 2024, 12:17:37 PM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 11, 2024, 12:38:01 AMOf 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

I'd add one thing to this: it also naturally incentivizes players to ACTUALLY DO THINGS. Modern D&D doesn't because everything is regulated by some rule or abstraction. Advancement in OSR (up to 2e) rewards you for actually going out and doing stuff rather than being spoon fed content passively.

This is part of the schizo nature of storygamers and even regular players. They bitch incessantly about "too many rules!" and then bitch incessantly that the game "Needs more rules!"

Quote from: tenbones on December 11, 2024, 12:17:37 PM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 11, 2024, 12:38:01 AMOf 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

I'd add one thing to this: it also naturally incentivizes players to ACTUALLY DO THINGS. Modern D&D doesn't because everything is regulated by some rule or abstraction. Advancement in OSR (up to 2e) rewards you for actually going out and doing stuff rather than being spoon fed content passively.

Yep. You see a lot of WOTC D&D players on their phones, or spacing out until prompted to make a roll for something. This is the result of game design that puts all possible activity behind the gate of some target number that teaches players to just throw enough dice at until they win. Old school play is more naturally engaging.

I don't care about keeping old school mechanics in every place but I do want the old school playstyle.

Things like:
1.  Sandboxes
2.  Detailed Settings
3.  Skilled play by the players inside the dungeon
4.  Preparation and planning

None of those things precludes character development or any thing else rather to me it adds to that mix well.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on December 11, 2024, 01:09:10 PM

Quote from: tenbones on December 11, 2024, 12:17:37 PM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 11, 2024, 12:38:01 AMOf 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

I'd add one thing to this: it also naturally incentivizes players to ACTUALLY DO THINGS. Modern D&D doesn't because everything is regulated by some rule or abstraction. Advancement in OSR (up to 2e) rewards you for actually going out and doing stuff rather than being spoon fed content passively.

Yep. You see a lot of WOTC D&D players on their phones, or spacing out until prompted to make a roll for something. This is the result of game design that puts all possible activity behind the gate of some target number that teaches players to just throw enough dice at until they win. Old school play is more naturally engaging.

one reason they are on their phones, or spacing out, is because of the 5E mechanics

I did a lot of play testing when it came out, and gave the system a "F". Some of the reasons were

1. Combat took, on average 3-4 times longer than any other TTRPG on the market (that I had played and tested).
2. The larger the player number, the longer it took between dice rolls, interactive input, or involvement for a given player. It was not uncommon for 20-30 minutes between player actions/dice rolls with a group of 6 or more players. That is unacceptable.
3. Too many player options within a given round (delays the game)
4. Complexity of combat (free actions, bonus actions, special actions, attacks of opportunity, rule changes based on positioning, etc.).

In short, the game is just boring. However, other games suffer from some of these issues as well.

There are games like Masterbook which have mechanics to overcome many of these issues--I will put the details in another post. It is pretty interesting what that game does to remediate this stuff

OSR is not "better" however most players who have been around the RPG scene for any decent length of time will find OSR easier because games tend to use a lot of shared DNA which they are already familiar with. There's less to learn, which means that the performance to learning time is actually pretty good*.

* For an experienced player or GM.

The problem is that most of these advantages don't really apply to inexperienced players. From a beginner point of view, OSR is somewhat easier than something like using the classic GURPS ecosystem, but not by a huge amount. Another problem is that essentially all OSR games I am familiar with make some mechanical tradeoff which compromises the game's potential to make the game easier to design. D20 design is practically all about this tradeoff. I don't view OSR games as particularly ambitious or innovative, and I suspect that the volume of OSR games out there make them ripe for AI generation. Which is both good and bad.

The rose tinted glasses are getting thick. There was one big downside of the old school play style. It totally was dependent on the quality of the DM. There was no escaping it. A lot of people just didn't have the mental capability to do it. As a DM, you are the players eyes and ears to this created world. You have to be fair and reasonable. It was easy to be too easy and too easy to be too hard. "The magic ring you are looking for? It's lying right there on the floor." "What do you mean you can't find the ring? It was only hidden in a lead tube in the leg of one of the two hundred chairs in this hall..." You could either be easily bored or get tired of pixel humping the DM's imagination.

Quote from: tenbones on December 11, 2024, 12:17:37 PMI'd add one thing to this: it also naturally incentivizes players to ACTUALLY DO THINGS. Modern D&D doesn't because everything is regulated by some rule or abstraction.

That's an emergent property from "rulings, not rules" and "player skill, not character skill." If at least one of those two things is granted, then players are incentivised to do things, rather than look at the drop-down menu of their character sheet to apply skill X to situation Y.

Quote from: zend0g on December 11, 2024, 08:31:58 PMThere was one big downside of the old school play style. It totally was dependent on the quality of the DM. There was no escaping it.

No, it's dependent on the skill of all participants. RPGs are a team sport - the better the players, the more interesting and fun the game.

It's mostly nostalgia. I think the golden age of TTRPGs was from about 1984 to 1990. Pre metaplots & splats, post D&D being a pop culture fad. Most of us are Gen X, and started playing during this time, (or slightly earlier).

I do think something like B/X does D&D very well, however it's hard to find people who are at all interested in that kind of play. I personally love hex crawls, but I'm lucky to get my players to give one a go once a decade. Most modern players, even those who have been playing for 30+ years just don't have nostalgia for the old ways.

Quote from: Riquez on December 10, 2024, 12:24:20 PM

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.

I'm glad I could help out.

I gave up on finding a perfect game for me.  Instead, I'm more interested in a list of features I prefer, and play games that have those.  In my case I like building a character from points instead of randomly rolling stats, lots of classes, armor is a saving throw, weapons have traits so each kind has a niche, warriors can customize their abilities, and magic is a skill check.

So far, I'm close or spot on.  Pocket Fantasy, Mini-six:Bare Bones, True-D6/Kogarashi, and TinyD6 series are all games I play now.  Pocket Fantasy and Mini-Six are both free, while True-D6 barely cost anything. 

I'm happy enough with those.

Quote from: zend0g on December 11, 2024, 08:31:58 PMThe rose tinted glasses are getting thick. There was one big downside of the old school play style. It totally was dependent on the quality of the DM. There was no escaping it. A lot of people just didn't have the mental capability to do it. As a DM, you are the players eyes and ears to this created world. You have to be fair and reasonable. It was easy to be too easy and too easy to be too hard. "The magic ring you are looking for? It's lying right there on the floor." "What do you mean you can't find the ring? It was only hidden in a lead tube in the leg of one of the two hundred chairs in this hall..." You could either be easily bored or get tired of pixel humping the DM's imagination.

I think all RPGs are dependent on the quality of the GM. Trying to avoid this just ends up with something that's not actually an RPG. Eg it turns into a skirmish wargame or a story-creation game.