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

[Malkavian Grin]

You know I'm into the OSR since I'm playing in them and even running one currently (Mörk Borg) so my opinion is, i tend to prefer less hard rules that constrict what you're allowed to try/do.

I like when there's flexible room for interpretation.

I don't like unseen traps that require you to constantly describe how you search. Traps should be puzzles you can figure out and interact with.

For people asking about playing in one, I'm planning a game of Old School Essentials for the original Castle Ravenloft as a bit off a one-shot. Trimming a lot of the extra fat and getting straight to the meat of the adventure but with a few twists and turns to keep people on their feet since it's a popular module.

[Vladim]

I like the OSR-style philosophy of "rulings not rules". Many of the popular D&D style games are becoming extremely rules-heavy (for me), either due to rules bloat (PF1e) or a wish/design to try and be exhaustive when it comes to player options (PF2e). It's crazy to need an app to build a character! Who has the time and mental capacity for that?!

I don't care at all for some other aspects of old-school mentality, like the adversarial GM-player relationship. Actually, let me rephrase that: I think it's toxic to games, and it's toxic to the hobby. Maybe toxic is too strong a word-it's ok if that's what everyone wants. But if that's the default attitude, I don't care much for it.

I don't understand the obsession with dungeons. I get it to some point, it gives the game structure, but D&D-esque fantasy is already limited: it's always games about killing monsters and taking their stuff. Why limit it further with focusing it on dungeon crawls? I think there's more interesting directions to explore (e.g. Forbidden Lands' hexcrawls mechanics and adventure site ideas, or the "Without Numbers" SciFi/urban books).

[cailano]

1 hour ago, Malkavian Grin said:

For people asking about playing in one, I'm planning a game of Old School Essentials for the original Castle Ravenloft as a bit off a one-shot. Trimming a lot of the extra fat and getting straight to the meat of the adventure but with a few twists and turns to keep people on their feet since it's a popular module.

... and there you have it folks. This whole thread is worth the read for that announcement alone.

[cailano]

1 hour ago, Vladim said:

I like the OSR-style philosophy of "rulings not rules". Many of the popular D&D style games are becoming extremely rules-heavy (for me), either due to rules bloat (PF1e) or a wish/design to try and be exhaustive when it comes to player options (PF2e). It's crazy to need an app to build a character! Who has the time and mental capacity for that?!

I don't care at all for some other aspects of old-school mentality, like the adversarial GM-player relationship. Actually, let me rephrase that: I think it's toxic to games, and it's toxic to the hobby. Maybe toxic is too strong a word-it's ok if that's what everyone wants. But if that's the default attitude, I don't care much for it.

I don't understand the obsession with dungeons. I get it to some point, it gives the game structure, but D&D-esque fantasy is already limited: it's always games about killing monsters and taking their stuff. Why limit it further with focusing it on dungeon crawls? I think there's more interesting directions to explore (e.g. Forbidden Lands' hexcrawls mechanics and adventure site ideas, or the "Without Numbers" SciFi/urban books).

The best OSR games I've played in (and, I hope, have run) do not feature a GM vs. Player adversarial style. I'm not sure why that would be fun. The GM has unlimited power and, outside the actions of the PCs, unlimited agency. It would be trivial to kill all the PCs, but that's not the point.

I'm not denying that you've had those experiences. I'm just saying that they aren't typical of the play style. Not if it's done right.

I would say that OSR games are more simulationist. The central question that is continually being asked in the game is, what would you do if you were in your character's shoes in this exact situation? That interaction between PC and gameworld is what OSR exploration is all about.

Your question about dungeons is legit. Many OSR games (and almost all of mine) center on dungeon crawls, and most OSR games have rules to support that activity, specifically. If you don't like dungeons, there's a good chance the OSR isn't for you.

[Vladim]

19 minutes ago, cailano said:

(snip)

If you don't like dungeons, there's a good chance the OSR isn't for you.

I don't want or need to get into an argument, but for the sake of the record, and for the sake of folks new to OSR reading this, I feel like I have to reply to this last point: OSR is an umbrella term which includes many diverse games, and many of them do not necessarily focus on dungeon crawling (or, at least, not exclusively). See aforementioned post of mine for some examples (Forbidden Lands, Cities Without Numbers, Worlds Without Numbers... there's probably more).

So the statement should probably be amended to something like: "if you don't like dungeons, there's probably OSR games you can find that don't only focus on dungeons".

[cailano]

23 minutes ago, Vladim said:

I don't want or need to get into an argument, but for the sake of the record, and for the sake of folks new to OSR reading this, I feel like I have to reply to this last point: OSR is an umbrella term which includes many diverse games, and many of them do not necessarily focus on dungeon crawling (or, at least, not exclusively). See aforementioned post of mine for some examples (Forbidden Lands, Cities Without Numbers, Worlds Without Numbers... there's probably more).

So the statement should probably be amended to something like: "if you don't like dungeons, there's probably OSR games you can find that don't only focus on dungeons".

Interesting but I'll just concede your point since I'd like to keep this thread about non-OSR players impressions of the play style.

[Malkavian Grin]

2 hours ago, cailano said:

The best OSR games I've played in (and, I hope, have run) do not feature a GM vs. Player adversarial style. I'm not sure why that would be fun. The GM has unlimited power and, outside the actions of the PCs, unlimited agency. It would be trivial to kill all the PCs, but that's not the point.

Honestly, the only time I saw this was when everyone was playing D&D 3.5 and the ex-military guy in our (extended) group decided to run a session of combat. He specifically set up a a scenario on a small cliff's edge with flying monsters and wind and stuff that could grapple well, just to see how many PCs he could yeet into the abyss below.

The look on this guy's face while he ran that session said it all for me. This attitude happens, is toxic as hell, but seems to be in the minority (and also not exclusive to the OSR).

3 hours ago, cailano said:

... and there you have it folks. This whole thread is worth the read for that announcement alone.

Awww thank you! <3

[Excior]

On 10/18/2023 at 7:29 AM, 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.

 

I really liked 3.0 and 3.5 as well but the one thing I did not like was the stat blocks for monsters they were almost twice as big and it slowed play down a lot. I remember in AD&D we could have several encounters over the course of an evening but in 3.0 or 3.5 an entire session cold take up one encounter

 

[cailano]

1 hour ago, Excior said:

I really liked 3.0 and 3.5 as well but the one thing I did not like was the stat blocks for monsters they were almost twice as big and it slowed play down a lot. I remember in AD&D we could have several encounters over the course of an evening but in 3.0 or 3.5 an entire session cold take up one encounter

 

Fast gameplay is one of my favorite OSR features as well.

[OgreWattage]

My frist gme ever with a starter box of D&D 3.5, me and my brother spent most of our time in a room with a trap that snakes came out of, farmed them until they stopped, took he snakes , and created poisoned bolts,. That room I have tried t recreate i so many games, and I don't mean that exactly. I mean creating a room or senario where the players think outside their abelites, and items, and explore the possibilities. I love putting weird stuff in barrels because of that room, I love puzzles you cant roll to solve becuase of that room. and that style of doing stuff outside your abilities is the heart of table top games. Less rules = more chaos. Crits doing the same thing everytime is boring, crit fails doing the same thing every time is boring. Predictability is boring,

[cailano]

18 minutes ago, OgreWattage said:

My frist gme ever with a starter box of D&D 3.5, me and my brother spent most of our time in a room with a trap that snakes came out of, farmed them until they stopped, took he snakes , and created poisoned bolts,. That room I have tried t recreate i so many games, and I don't mean that exactly. I mean creating a room or senario where the players think outside their abelites, and items, and explore the possibilities. I love putting weird stuff in barrels because of that room, I love puzzles you cant roll to solve becuase of that room. and that style of doing stuff outside your abilities is the heart of table top games. Less rules = more chaos. Crits doing the same thing everytime is boring, crit fails doing the same thing every time is boring. Predictability is boring,

I don’t think I follow.

[OgreWattage]

Ah my fualt, Frist time I played was using Old Style Rules, which means there are less. Dms make on the run calls, in Old School Gaming. There were no rles in that starter set about making weapon poison out of snake. There are little to no ules about non rogues finding traps, yet my friend destroyed them with a hammer and a tent pitons. Old school rules have two types of rules, Rules that are incredibly broad or incredibly precise, making everything in between up to the DM to decide on the run. A mixture of common sense, and Colorful images.

Someone jumps off a ledge to stab something. Modern games might say "they get a small bonus and they have to roll acrobatics," while in old style games the DM makes a call based off what he thinks in the same senario, a DM might give the player double damage, if succeeds, might make him whip out if he misses might have him do the acrobatics first to see if he doesn't screw the jump up, might sat with a stealth check to see what he is attacking notices him or not. S the less defined the rules are, the more ruling he DM makes as they go. Modern TTRPG goal s to have the same thing happen to be consistent, not a bad thin at all. But a old game system the dm more or less says, "convince me you can do it, and Ill tell you what to roll."

[cailano]

8 hours ago, OgreWattage said:

Ah my fualt, Frist time I played was using Old Style Rules, which means there are less. Dms make on the run calls, in Old School Gaming. There were no rles in that starter set about making weapon poison out of snake. There are little to no ules about non rogues finding traps, yet my friend destroyed them with a hammer and a tent pitons. Old school rules have two types of rules, Rules that are incredibly broad or incredibly precise, making everything in between up to the DM to decide on the run. A mixture of common sense, and Colorful images.

Someone jumps off a ledge to stab something. Modern games might say "they get a small bonus and they have to roll acrobatics," while in old style games the DM makes a call based off what he thinks in the same senario, a DM might give the player double damage, if succeeds, might make him whip out if he misses might have him do the acrobatics first to see if he doesn't screw the jump up, might sat with a stealth check to see what he is attacking notices him or not. S the less defined the rules are, the more ruling he DM makes as they go. Modern TTRPG goal s to have the same thing happen to be consistent, not a bad thin at all. But a old game system the dm more or less says, "convince me you can do it, and Ill tell you what to roll."

Ah, gotcha. Yes, older editions relied on the GM for rulings, which, if you had a good GM was a very fast way to do things. If a player in an OSR game tells me they leap off a roof and tackle someone off a horse, I don't bother to look that up because I know the rule isn't there. I just say something like, "Take a -4 to hit and roll your attack."

In a modern system, that would probably be an athletics check vs the opponent's riding skill with a penalty based on the horse's speed. I'm not sure, so I'll have to look it up. Let's see... not under the riding skill... no, not under grappling... ah, here it is under mounted combat. Sort of. We'll use that rule. Okay, let's do the math... Oh wait, you have the "tackle" feat! Let's see, that makes the DC 4 lower...

I'm exaggerating a bit. Kind of. But that's the basic difference between the play styles. One is very fast but will depend a lot on your GM. The other has a chance for more nuance and consistency but also the potential to slow the game down. There are always trade offs. Different strokes for different folks.

[iamtim]

I'm sure that I'm not unique in saying that I've been playing "OSR" since it wasn't old-school. I started playing D&D with Moldvay B/X D&D way back in like... '81. 2nd edition AD&D was my home for more years than I care to count. To this day, if I'm going to play D&D, I would much rather play B/X or AD&D 2E than anything which came after it (with exception to games like OSE or S&W, which have done a really good job of cleaning up, clarifying, and keeping interest in the old-school games).

But I don't follow the OSR - as a community - any longer. There is a LOT of toxicity there. So now I just play what I like and what I enjoy.

But yeah, if I were going to run a D&D game again, it would not be 5th edition, or 3rd edition (and while I own the 4th edition core books, I've never actually read them or played in a 4th edition game). It would be straight-up B/X or AD&D 2E (or, again, something like OSE or S&W). I'd certainly *play* 5th edition, but I won't run it.

 

[cailano]

There is, unfortunately, some drek within the OSR community but lately I've seen a lot of push back against them and towards more inclusivity within the player base. Turns out that no one play style actually wants a bunch of jerks at the table.