5E and Pathfinder Players: What is your impression of OSR gaming?

[cailano]

While I've played a lot of Pathfinder and even a little 5E, I'm primarily an OSR gamer. I prefer that style of RPG and I seem to prefer it more as time goes on.

But I'm curious: for those who started gaming with what I think of as the "modern" editions of 3E and above, what are your thoughts on the classic editions of Dungeons and Dragons or of other OSR-style games like Labyrinth Lord, Old School Essentials, or Dungeon Crawl Classics?

Have you played in an OSR game before? If not, why not? Would you consider doing so in the future?

I promise I'm not here to argue with anyone about their preferences, I'd just like to hear your impressions of the OSR and whether or not it sounds like a fun way to game.

[yxanthymir]

Never played an OSR, but I already read and played a lot of different systems to know when I will like something just by reading the rules. I read ADnD, Castle and Crusades, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and possibly one or two more; and I really don't like the rules from all of them. They feel bland and really bad. If I wanted a lighter system to play a game, I would rather play Fate or other similar light system with good and interesting mechanics.

Now, for the good part, there are really great adventures created for these systems. I just wished these systems weren't the problem.

[Lord Foul]

There isn't a voting option that fits my personal view.

I have been playing what miight be termed OSR games since they were the modern systems. In more recent times I have, somewhat reluctantly to begin with, started to embrace newer versions, and have been a little surprised to find that I now have very much mixed feelings.

I've been running an AD&D 1st edition tabletop game since 1985, and I have no intention switching to a different system. It does exactly what I want in a game, and I've adapted it (as it clearly suggests in the rule books) to make that fit as good as I can get it. Why would I need any other game system?

But, when it comes to playing, I now find I actually prefer one of the later systems, with D&D 3.5 being my personal favourite. I love the sheer scale and scope of all the things it includes for PCs to experiment with, and the way it rewards any thought and planning a player chooses to invest in developing a character. Flexibility in player options is a big attraction for me, so the massive toolkit works for me here.

I do still harbour considerable doubts about the newer systems with regard to the amount of knowledge and familiarity required to play them effectively. D&D 5 has gone some way towards making a game that doesn't require a PhD in advanced character building in order to even play the game, but I find the 'feel' of the game is still rather more 'mechanic-focused' than the games of yore, which were all about the story and the magic and mystery and weirdness of it all, and where if you have a decent idea most DMs would just roll with it because the Rule of Cool wins over anything printed in a dusty old tome.

So... both really.

 

[Inash]

There isn't a voting option for 'I'm willing to give one a try if the player resources are readily available, but haven't had the opportunity yet beyond making a cities without number application that wasn't accepted.'

[cailano]

8 hours ago, yxanthymir said:

Never played an OSR, but I already read and played a lot of different systems to know when I will like something just by reading the rules. I read ADnD, Castle and Crusades, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and possibly one or two more; and I really don't like the rules from all of them. They feel bland and really bad. If I wanted a lighter system to play a game, I would rather play Fate or other similar light system with good and interesting mechanics.

Now, for the good part, there are really great adventures created for these systems. I just wished these systems weren't the problem.

Well, hey at least you read them! Yeah, the OSR is about many things but mechanical depth is not one of them.

[cailano]

1 hour ago, Lord Foul said:

There isn't a voting option that fits my personal view.

I have been playing what miight be termed OSR games since they were the modern systems. In more recent times I have, somewhat reluctantly to begin with, started to embrace newer versions, and have been a little surprised to find that I now have very much mixed feelings.

I've been running an AD&D 1st edition tabletop game since 1985, and I have no intention switching to a different system. It does exactly what I want in a game, and I've adapted it (as it clearly suggests in the rule books) to make that fit as good as I can get it. Why would I need any other game system?

But, when it comes to playing, I now find I actually prefer one of the later systems, with D&D 3.5 being my personal favourite. I love the sheer scale and scope of all the things it includes for PCs to experiment with, and the way it rewards any thought and planning a player chooses to invest in developing a character. Flexibility in player options is a big attraction for me, so the massive toolkit works for me here.

I do still harbour considerable doubts about the newer systems with regard to the amount of knowledge and familiarity required to play them effectively. D&D 5 has gone some way towards making a game that doesn't require a PhD in advanced character building in order to even play the game, but I find the 'feel' of the game is still rather more 'mechanic-focused' than the games of yore, which were all about the story and the magic and mystery and weirdness of it all, and where if you have a decent idea most DMs would just roll with it because the Rule of Cool wins over anything printed in a dusty old tome.

So... both really.

 

This is a good answer, and very detailed. It sounds like we need an option for "I like both play styles "

[cailano]

1 hour ago, Inash said:

There isn't a voting option for 'I'm willing to give one a try if the player resources are readily available, but haven't had the opportunity yet beyond making a cities without number application that wasn't accepted.'

Interesting, I'm usually able to take around 80% or more of the players that apply for my games. When I've advertised Pathfinder games, it's more like 30%.

I can add an option for "I want to try OSR."

[Inash]

There were a lot of applicants to the CWN game, and RL interfered with me finishing the character I was making for the last WWN game powderhorn advertised.

 

My current preference for games is for PF1e. I really like the character creation for PF2e though - haven't had a lot of opportunity to play though, so I don't know how well it really works.

[cailano]

I added a couple of poll options based on our answers so far. Very enlightening responses!

[cailano]

50 minutes ago, Inash said:

There were a lot of applicants to the CWN game, and RL interfered with me finishing the character I was making for the last WWN game powderhorn advertised.

 

My current preference for games is for PF1e. I really like the character creation for PF2e though - haven't had a lot of opportunity to play though, so I don't know how well it really works.

Hmm... maybe I need to work on my recruiting skills. It's possible that "you're all going to die" isn't the best message for bringing in players.

[Inash]

4 minutes ago, cailano said:

Hmm... maybe I need to work on my recruiting skills.

I ignore a lot of the adds for systems I don't have books or know about an SRD for (or ones like the _without number games or Lancer that have a free players book).

[leons1701]

Not exactly the target audience since I was playing when the most "modern" system was AD&D, but I do have opinions. I also have to work, so I'll make this quick. What I think of OSR is that it proves, once and for all, that "immersion" is a completely meaningless term that is used completely differently by different groups. To the hard core OSR types, nearly interchangeable characters that exist only to show off player ingenuity are somehow *more* immersive than characters who's stats and skills have an actual effect on the game. And the strange thing is, they're right. FOR THEM. I've played Old School. Given the right group and a game that appealed, I wouldn't turn down another crack at that style of play, but it is far from what I prefer. I'm not a fan of the extreme random lethality, or really, the extreme random everything that characterizes most Old School. I really don't want to go back to the days of describing exactly how I search the tunnel for traps, or needing to explicitly mention that yes of course my character looked at the ceiling before entering the room. And poked the floor with a 10' pole. And is not touching anything except where his feet touch the floor. And is absolutely NOT looking in the conveniently eyeball height and sized hole in the wall. Etfreaking cetera. At every door. No thanks.

[Bobcloclimar]

I burned out 3.X and its descendants several years back (was spending waaaay too much time building and not enough time playing), so I've been drawn to the OSR due to the relative simplicity of character creation and a yearning for Appendix-N styled shenanigans. However, I have no actual experience playing in the OSR (just lots of blog-reading, and I'm currently listening to 3d6DTL's Arden Vul AP), so I can't really determine whether I actually enjoy it (I'm really not a fan of body horror, so LotFP and its ilk are out)... but the lure is strong.

 

I missed the last couple OSR-styled dungeon crawl games that were advertised here, but I'd apply to a new one in a heartbeat.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Bobcloclimar (see edit history)

[cailano]

12 minutes ago, leons1701 said:

Not exactly the target audience since I was playing when the most "modern" system was AD&D, but I do have opinions. I also have to work, so I'll make this quick. What I think of OSR is that it proves, once and for all, that "immersion" is a completely meaningless term that is used completely differently by different groups. To the hard core OSR types, nearly interchangeable characters that exist only to show off player ingenuity are somehow *more* immersive than characters who's stats and skills have an actual effect on the game. And the strange thing is, they're right. FOR THEM. I've played Old School. Given the right group and a game that appealed, I wouldn't turn down another crack at that style of play, but it is far from what I prefer. I'm not a fan of the extreme random lethality, or really, the extreme random everything that characterizes most Old School. I really don't want to go back to the days of describing exactly how I search the tunnel for traps, or needing to explicitly mention that yes of course my character looked at the ceiling before entering the room. And poked the floor with a 10' pole. And is not touching anything except where his feet touch the floor. And is absolutely NOT looking in the conveniently eyeball height and sized hole in the wall. Etfreaking cetera. At every door. No thanks.

It sounds like you had some bad experiences. That's a bummer. OSR dungeons aren't supposed to be exercises in tedium. You definitely don't want to enter rooms like "... okay, let me check my list. I look at the ceiling, I look at the walls, I poke the floor, yada yada." That's why the classic editions used to have turn-based movement for exploration. It took a long time to progress through a dungeon because it was assumed that the PCs were being very cautious.

But your GM(s) might have missed a few key ideas.

[cailano]

16 minutes ago, Bobcloclimar said:

I burned out 3.X and its descendants several years back (was spending waaaay too much time building and not enough time playing), so I've been drawn to the OSR due to the relative simplicity of character creation and a yearning for Appendix-N styled shenanigans. However, I have no actual experience playing in the OSR (just lots of blog-reading, and I'm currently listening to 3d6DTL's Arden Vul AP), so I can't really determine whether I actually enjoy it (I'm really not a fan of body horror, so LotFP and its ilk are out)... but the lure is strong.

 

I missed the last couple OSR-styled dungeon crawl games that were advertised here, but I'd apply to a new one in a heartbeat.

The OSR community is growing and I'm hoping we see more games in that style popping up on the Weave in the near future. Not to the exclusion of other play styles, but in addition to them.