To people who have played OSR, not the people who whine constantly about over the internet. Is it genuinely fun or is it a monotonous dungeon slog. I am thinking of running a OSR game set in my custom setting and I am wondering if I should use an OSR system over 5e or GURPS or something similiar.
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
OSR is a lot of fun if you like OSR, I like OSR. If you are split between 5e and OSR then I advise you to read the rules for both and determine what kind of game you're playing first, and pick a system second. Because OSR and 5e are night and day.
OSR is really fun
5e's like a weird medium between OSR and 3e, which is the REAL opposite of OSR.
In pure gameplay terms yes, but as far as how the community at large engages with the game 5e is far more the opposite in practice. With 3.5e the dungeon crawl was still the primary mode of play even if the game wasn't optimally set up for executing it well at all. While most 5e tables out there are playing the big adventure paths which have barely any real dungeon crawling at all.
I cobbled together dungeon crawling rules for 5e based on playtest material and old rules and the game is like 70% better just from that.
You're both right. The problem with 5e isn't the framework; it's the culture of play actively encourages by the developers (and certain popular content creators). The framework is surprisingly loyal to older principles, except that they literally cut most dungeon and exploration rules out of the core rulebooks and scattered the remains among 2 books and the DM screen.
D&D's sacred cows work pretty much fine when you're playing the narrow scope of gameplay that they were designed for, the problem is that most of the playerbase has moved on or were not around for the context of that gameplay in the first place and WotC is terrified to just chuck the sacred cows and make a game that works for the broader scope of modern play BUT ALSO wants to pretend the basic game RAW works fine for modern play.
It's all so frustrating. I think most people would enjoy dungeon crawling if they actually tried it, because it's pretty engaging gameplay. And there's no reason NOT to tie it to epic plots -- I know it's a vidya, but look at Diablo 2. Epic sweeping plot on static rails and everything is in dungeons.
I wish Wizards just had the fricking balls to say "this game works best for dangerous, resource-draining overland travel and dungeon diving. Now, here's how you can build a plot around those elements..." instead of having the rules be exactly that but try to pretend the game is 100% universal. Their approach is toxic for the entire hobby.
>Lord of the Rings
I feel like the actual mode of play is pretty OSR. All they do for 4/6 books is travel around in a group that's 90% fighters, get into random encounters, get BTFO'd by the environment, dwindle their various resources, and explore a giant dungeon where they try their hardest to avoid fighting. It's no coincidence that the official rpg is mostly a hex crawl with social interaction rules.
5e's wilderness were conspicuously omitted after having been present in Next.
>I think most people would enjoy dungeon crawling if they actually tried it, because it's pretty engaging gameplay. And there's no reason NOT to tie it to epic plots -- I know it's a vidya, but look at Diablo 2. Epic sweeping plot on static rails and everything is in dungeons.
I genuinely do not remember a single thing about the plot of Diablo 2. I just remember the builds, and those sweet, sweet items.
>Is [thing] fun or awful?
>Only people that willingly engaging in [thing] regularly should answer.
Gee I wonder what conclusion this thread will arrive at.
only those that have given it a try there is a difference you fricking midwit.
>So pissy he can't understand sampling bias *or* find the shift key
My god you're thin skinned.
>Only people that willingly engaging in [thing] regularly should answer.
Where was this said or implied?
I ran a trve OSR game one time
my players very quickly got bored of crypt diving and started beefing with bandits to the exclusion of all else
the highest level character was a 6er before we quit, given we didn't enjoy the shit that made up the majority of the rules
>ran true osr to level 6 even tho they were bored
>somehow got to level 6 fighting bandits
Liar.
fighting a bandit clan with members in the triple digits with a handful of forts and influence in the local towns, yes
Lmao no, xp for bandits is negligible and so would the treasure. Unless the forts were dungeons which case you're still a liar. Only way you would get xp to get to level 6 is with storygay xp.
a very important question should be: why you wanna try OSR? what intrigues you of such system?
I am intrigued by the realism of the rules and the crunchiness of it. I know it isnt real OSR but I also like magic system from dungeon crawl classics.
>realism
>crunchyness
>osr
>le wacky dcc magic
You've already fricked it. While there can be more rules intensive osr, neither that nor realism are is strong suits.
>>the crunchiness of it
>OSR
>crunchy
What the frick? You know 90% of the OSR is based on B/X, right?
He also thinks it's focused on realism, which is weird too. Realism was the hobby-horse of much of the "new school" that conquered the scene in the late 80s.
What I think you actually want is called the Classic style. Classic style is about engaging with (possibly crunchy) rules directly to fight, loot, and explore. Eventually you become powerful enough to run a domain like a church, guild, or kingdom and switch to wargaming/dungeoneering hybrid. It's about really "playing the game" and doing everything by the book as best as you can.
OSR style is about people using rules as little as possible while still focusing on dungeon diving and procedure. It's mostly the players and GM talking "common sense" back and forth, instead of rolling dice, to overcome obstacles and avoid combat. That is called "skill-based gameplay" by OSR enjoyers. Dice are only rolled when failure can cause a loss of resources. XP is largely based on removing loot from dungeons, and very little of it is based on fighting, which is designed to kill you so easily and reward you sparsely that you never do it on purpose.
https://retiredadventurer.blogspot.com/2021/04/six-cultures-of-play.html?m=1
>OSR style is about people using rules as little as possible
I hate reddit so much
I think he means it's not about direct adherence to established rule systems and more about adapting homebrew and mixed rule systems, because otherwise that entire passage doesn't line up with the rest of what he's saying.
rulings over rules. back to your 3.5 hole, b***h
>redditgay has a poor grasp of a thing that is built around half-understood memes
>when mocked for it, he regurgitates even MORE memes that he doesn't understand
Many such cases!
>no actual argument
>just screeching "REDDIT" at everyone
What's your character build?
>If you suggest that my game of Calvinball isn't peak OSR then you must be a 3.5 player!
weird to have those guys live in your head, IMO
you read a lot into people's posts that they never say.
>Rules light obviously means calvinball.
play some B/X instead of memes on Ganker sometime.
>NO U
Brilliant comeback, meme-man. You're not playing B/X anymore if you -- to directly quote your post -- "use as little of the rules as possible." And defending that silliness by invoking the "OSR primer" catch-phrase of "rulings over rules" just shows that you get your ideas from the memes that flowed out of those things.
Those primers are the cause of more stupid and wrong notions about the OSR than any other thing in the history of the movement. They were well-meaning attempts at popularization, but boiling complex subjects down to easily memorized (and easily misunderstood) phrases was a terrible idea.
OSR gameplay is defined by a strict adherence to a set of rules that turn exploration into something akin to a board game far more than "ruling on the field" Calvinball. It emphasizes the Game and procedures towards that end far more than most RPGs.
You're playing it wrong. Re-read your books. Dungeons procedures are just the frame. You can do anything within that frame. More so than in other games. If you only see it as autistically following the "rules" and as a boardgame, you're just wrong.
B/X using classic player here to concur. OSR started as a return to classic style play and then shit got weird and it veered off into its own thing, hived off Free Kriegspiel, and then retired from gaming to scream polshit and accuse each other of being spies for some imaginary opposition full time.
If you actually want to play a game, sidestep the OSR argument threads entirely and head back to classic.
In regards to the play: classic style gaming can be an absolute blast, but it's very different. The procedures sort of lay down a rhythm that the game improvises on top of. In very short order, you're very likely to have each player at the table managing multiple characters that they're much less invested in, each with a small horde of hirelings and henchmen, and all of their interactions with each having the chance to pump out *actual* story in a way I don't think any other style of gaming has ever come close to. Absolutely a 100% recommend in my book.
However, I would strongly recommend not getting caught in the middle: the classic rule sets were created to support the classic style of play, and they absolutely do not reward modern habits or assumptions. Likewise, the OC era rule sets were created to support the OC style of play and they absolutely do not reward classic habits or assumptions. Don't get caught in the middle trying to stretch a game to accommodate everything and end up with something neither fish nor fowl that satisfies no one: better to pick one and chase it than to lose both.
Honestly I didn't enjoy it when I tried it, our characters were so fragile that it incentivized us to hire a bunch of henchmen to serve as meat shields and that slowed the game to a crawl.
2012, osr was pretty cool. it meant d20 class/level no skills, other than that do what you want.
now it doesn't mean anything, and wants to be true to the mechanics of tsr, and is politicized
the worst thing abou the osr is the players. nobody roleplays at all anymore, waste of time.
A big part of whether it's good or not is whether the DM is good at discarding the rules to make the game better. This will make /osrg/ squeal like pigs, but being able to improv stuff the rules themselves don't cover (or don't cover enough) is part of the process. If you just play it like it's a video game and only follow what's pre-programmed into the rules, it's going to be pretty bland.
It depends highly, highly on the DM. I don't think it's really a case of discarding rules like , but more about designing/selecting dungeons and settings that fit well with the rules assumptions - and to some extent whether you have players who really grasp the idea as well.
There's a lot of pop culture assumptions built up around fantasy that can often be a detriment. I ran one game which ended up a real meat-grinder slog because the players really took to trying to kill everything in their path rather than trying to slip by or negotiate.
To some extent I may also have been at fault for framing the initial starting hook as investigating a beastman lair and not easily telegraphing that negotiating passage was a real choice.
OSR DnD is a lot of fun.
Just learn from OSR, discuss OSR, play whatever hybrid of OSR+Your taste you like.
It isn't for everyone but there is something to be said about the overall simplicity and the need to actually think, especially at the lower levels since you don't want to die and gold is (typically) the best way to level up. Early on you want to avoid battles unless you have a truly superior upper hand, and at mid to high levels it can still be quite deadly but you should have a small contingent of hirelings and mercenaries helping out.
I've run a fairly consistent game for about 3 years and I won't ever go back. The most important thing is if your players like character customization, AD&D is probably a stronger bet but B/X will be easier to run (at least at first, I've got AD&D down pat.)
The sense of world indifference, challenge and thrill makes the game a lot of fun and forces players to think outside the box and do crazy shit (which is kind of the essence of good d&d imo.)
Remember, without time tracking you CANNOT have a meaningful campaign.
I ran an AD&D campaign in 2012-2013 that attracted a player base of over 20. I think a good time was had by the core group. I didn't know I was "OSR" at the time though.
Greentext? I love hearing about old megagroups.
I think part of it is to do it at a time when D&D is particularly unpopular because I also had a big group in the late 90s.
Basically you just sort of low key talk about D&D among Magic players and hand select some really cool people who have an interest then you get started with them and they end up being the highest level from playing the most and starting the earliest.
Then you try to cultivate a good combination of nerdier nerds who really want to be in with the cool nerds and legitimate cool people who just sort of drop in and out
And drinking and a general party atmosphere
Do you want your players to use their heads during play to solve interesting, tactile challenges to explore and exploit the environment? Or do you want your players to use their brains outside of play to research a character build to perform optimally in combat and when rolling skill checks?
You can play either way in either system, but the differences in rulesets and mindset of the community will lean heavily in one direction whichever you choose.
That depends on the quality of your GM and player group, but I feel OSR has a lower requirement for fun. If you're the creative type and don't mind others messing with your lore, you'd likely enjoy a classic-style hexcrawl. I will note that OSR systems lean heavily toward dungeon crawling, which is the meat and potatoes of the framework.
/osrg/'s relationship with the OSR is an atypical one. They are looking for a platonic ideal of a concept that cannot exist.
OSR D&D is not constant dungeon crawling and has a narrative through line with roleplaying and enjoyable combat. To leave that aspect out is to not play D&D as it was played in the first decade of its existence and definitely not how the founding fathers of the game wanted it to be played. Short of dungeon crawling being a survival horror game, D&D was played at Gary's table not that much differently than it is now at the home tables of most gamers. It was significantly low-powered compared to modern games, but it was no less of a ~~*collaborative story*~~.
Yes it's genuinely fun. What are you talking about? There's a reason it was the core of the hobby for so long.
It's simple but also incredibly easy to graft shit to because that's the point, so literally graft systems to it as needed (every osr system out there has different subsets of subsystems that you can just steal as needed and their all more or less compatible). The emphasis on time as a resource is probably the MOST important overall GMing tool/ability you will get out of it.
Literally, I actually kind of hate how many games have come to abstract time too much. I can understand abstracting distance since you can break things into zones with definedish areas but when people abstract time they literally just throw out the clock. I'm now in the habit of establishing turn times for literally any game I am playing regardless of what flavor it is. Just telling them like 'you are in city exploration turns now, every 'action' taken is ~30 minutes long, you can move from one block of the city to the next in a turn, here are some example actions' helps both GMs and players a lot. I think people in more modern systems just really forget that these are GAMES and are allergic to gameifying things, but turns are almost always appreciated by players.
OSR is basic. It's based on a game with "Basic" in the title. It is a barebones genre of roleplaying game. There are two benefits to this:
>The conventional OSR rulesets, although they've been tweaked and iterated on about a million times, are simple enough to accomodate just about any setting. There are sci-fi and fantasy and sword & planet OSR games, and all sorts of generic ones.
>Those same genre-wide conventions mean that, broadly speaking, OSR content is compatible with other OSR content. Considering the relative popularity of the genre, this means that any OSR system functionally has several lifetimes worth of published content available for it, and a lot of it is free.
What's OSR good for then? It's good for easy prep due to its simplicity. It's good for running published modules out of the book on game night. It's good for having a lot of material to pillage or outright steal from. When I'm between games, I can basically pick any well-reviewed module and run it in my system of choice, and it'll work great.
What else is worth noting? The tech is old. The style of play is very old-school D&D, and these games tend not to lend themselves to any other. They are dungeon crawlers of a million different flavors, but they are dungeon crawlers. This isn't necessarily a weakness, but it's something to consider. Your Game of Thrones political intrigue game, while possible, is probably better suited to a game outside of the OSR ecosystem. But if you're looking for a smorgasbord of systems that share similar design goals and generally centered around simulationist dungeon delving, hex exploration, or both, OSR's where it's at.
As Macris pointed out in his linear fighters video, 5e combat is an aggressive time-consuming slog precisely because it moved away from the design of OD&D and AD&D, resulting in situations where an 8th level fighter only manages to kill 0.2 bugbears per combat round. It seems like it scaled up the power of the players but the monsters scaled as well and it makes combat go on forever
I played Labyrinth Lord with a steady group for a long time years ago dunno if LL counts as TRVE OSR. It was a great time, but I'm not sure how much of it was just down to playing with friends. On a tangent, what'd you use to make your hex map?
Labyrinth Lord is legit, if somebody in /osrg/ says it's not, you can just assume it's the resident 2egay being butthurt that nobody likes him or his favorite edition.
It's genuinely fun. I think this is, in large part, due to having systems for exploration like the 10-min turn which create a real gameplay loop and interesting decisions about risk vs reward.
Combat is one of the most tedious aspects of 5e, so the speed of play in TSR D&D is a big plus for me. You lose some granularity, and you aren't doing anime combos if that's your thing - but you can bang things out. Between group initiative and minimal-nonexistent action economy (sometimes replaced with wargame-style phases), combat plays out faster in practice.
If you like D&D, you aren't a big fan of combat, and you want to cover a lot of ground in an adventure, OSR retroclones and the original editions may be the system for you. As a DM, you'll appreciate the more limited resources: no cantrips, no flying races, most races lack darkvision and spells. Many of the things that make challenging a 5e party without putting a big bag of hp for them to wail on don't exist - so you tend to have a greater variety of ways to challenge the PCs and engage the players.
Do you explore sandboxes or do you go only to points of interest in vidya? That will be your answer.
If you have a DM with a strong hacking mindset, aren't especially invested in any particular story, and dig the actual Conan, Lankhmar, and Dying Earth books much more than (say) A Song of Ice and Fire or Lord of the Rings, then OSR is probably a good fit. It works a lot better when your players want to be cunning, slightly scummy larcenists fighting against an uncaring universe/dicebag than the whole Epic Quest to Save The World thing a lot of people want. At least not until you have armies and can go Beowulf on a motherfricker.
Also, combat in OSR games is incredibly fast and generally pretty sphincter-tightening. The thing that takes most of your energy and time is exploration, interacting with the environment, and ESPECIALLY either negotiating, sneaking around, running away, or setting up ambushes and traps to avoid getting into combat in the first place. Monsters can frick your shit up, and the majority of them don't actually >want< to fight unless they have to (see: Morale rules, rules for ditching food and treasure to slow them down), but they will if you look like an easy kill. If your players like paranoia and puzzles, then go for OSR. If they want to mindlessly swing axes all day and kill everything in sight, then a more recent system is probably best.
I have played one OSR game, and it was alright, but I strongly recommend the so-called "nu-SR" game of ACKS. ACKS is the only game I've ever played that really addresses the issues I care most about in games, so on that basis alone I would recommend it, but setting aside my bias I think it makes the gameplay of exploring dungeons for loot waayy more satisfying when you can then invest that loot just like you would in reality.
>he so-called "nu-SR" game of ACKS
You got memed on, ACKS is solidly within the OSR canon even in /osrg/, see the definition in their OP.
To me, the defining OSR is OSRIC but I think to most people it's OSE.
Take off your name tag smaugtroony, you disgusting moron.
>is it a monotonous dungeon slog
If the dungeon is correctly difficult for players to traverse, it won't be monotonous. Being correctly difficult is NOT about large enough monsters or perfectly hidden traps. Correct difficulty comes in forcing the party to make complex decisions in relation to all possible dungeon elements and their current knowledge of the matter. Decisions like:
>which route to take
>what dungeon to delve
>when to retreat to the surface
>when to just take a big risk and be ready to re-roll characters
These decisions will be informed from:
>knowledge of the dungeon (layout, content)
>a rough gauge of the groups current potential (very difficult, most DMs are incapable to determining this even outside an active game in a theoretical environment)
>what the current strengths of this group is, in terms of items and composition, and to lesser extent good character rolls (the presence of clerics is always good versus the undead, for the simplest example)
>good old gambling, risking it for the biscuit (sometimes you're just taking a chance, betting is fun when the stakes are your characters and the potential is even better characters)
This phenomena arises naturally in most well rounded dungeons and campaigns without the authors intent towards this if you follow most procedures for the campaign and dungeon construction. If you leave out too many parts you will likely fail and creating this environment, which is why people new to OSR should just "do it by the book".
When you *get it*, you can start to remove elements of the campaign and dungeon construction, and add elements. OSR is not a perfect ideal, OSR is just a really good game. You are free to strive towards making an even better game once you intuit what made OSR good to begin with.
OSR is more of a playstyle. 5E has optional rules to add and remove to achieve it. Just look at your corebook.
GURPS is... possible? But the rule autism makes it really hard and since it's not DnD it can't really be OSR anyway. But you can play in the style of OSR with it if you modify the rules.
Of course modifying 5E and GURPS requires you to be a good GM with some experience. If you're not, just pick B/X (start with Basic). It,s better than OSR retroclones because it has examples and explanations that are lacking in most modern versions. Basic is dungeons. eXpert is wilderness and other shit. These 2 books are enough, but there are also modern supplements for B/X. You can also use the modules, but B/X has dungeon/hexcrawl creation rules that are solid enough for any situation.
Once you have read and used B/X you can use OSE if you want, it's like B/X with most of the examples and explanations removed.
>OSR is more of a playstyle
I've seen people use OD&D and B/X and play them like they were playing 5E. So, yes. Playstyle is important. Remember that 3e and shit came about from classic players playing the same game as before, but changing their style and the new rules reflecting that.
3e came about from Wizards applying the M:tG formula to attempting to simplify, balance and in some cases just make sense of the existing rules.
hahahahahhahaahah
What do you guys think of this article?
https://alchemistnocturne.blogspot.com/2021/12/why-osr.html
I think it draws a definite line; on the GM as arbiter allowed to create, than as the GM as god creator and dispenser of plot
>The core could look like a mission generator that would...
Hey, it's Cities Without Number
On the player side just using gritty resting and 1pt exhaustion from dropping to zero hp goes a long way in 5e. Behind the screen, AD&D dungeon crawling procedures can be used fairly well with liberal use of Perception DC modifiers.
>mangling 5e to try to make it like an OSR system
The fool has said in his folly "I can fix it!"
>nova and rest
Homie tried to play gritty without even gritty rest rules
Imagine
Gritty encourages even more nova and rest.
This, to fix it you basically need to remove one of the core assumptions of the system itself, at which point you're better off using something actually intended for what you want, than basically rewriting 5e.
I dunno if 1 combat a week is gonna make much overall progress.
In my experience the osr is an acquired taste. Dungeon slogging hasn't been monotonous because it is about improv and player skill instead of looking at skills and stats. Not every encounter has to be combat and players can do things you will not expect. Also, osr games are player goal driven, so there is fun in having free will to decide what to do instead of being confined to a combat heavy railroad.
Also, 5e sucks ass and gurps is for low-functioning autists.
How do you prefer combat and magic?
Almost anything else can be handled outside the rules. OSR absolutely has solid procedures for dungeon crawling but that won't matter either way if you don't intend to explore dungeons. OsR and AD&D also fit together well for additional crunch if you want that.
OSR games are fun in short bursts. There's two ways to effectively play.
1. Yolo it. You aren't roleplaying, you have a pawn. Do what it takes to win. If you die just make another pawn and continue as if you haven't died.
2. Get attached to your characters and get stressed every time you leave the safety of camp/town.
For me it's best played for 3-5 sessions at a time.
I like it over 5e, but I think my DM hasn't quite figured it out yet.
This thread has cemented my resolve to run OSR for my group once we finish our current game.
I still play and use my ad&d stuff, and hate 3rd edition, but I never go near "OSR"...it's for people too high on their own fumes
Beyond the Wall is good. All other OSR I've played were boring shit because the players and DMs were stiff, wooden puppets playing a videogame. When I ran Beyond the Wall we were making shit that "jumped off the page", basically. Even the players were coming up with interesting stuff in my weird little Babylonian setting with giant talking animals that kept their own blessed human dynasties a la Japanese animist legends.
It was simple enough I could run it with only 30 minutes of prep per session on average. The players had solid backstories and motivations from the lifepath chargen process. They eventually had all their shit turned on its head when they got Rip Van Winkled a decade into the future and had to restart their town after it had fallen to a great catastrophe. We finished the campaign with them as the new leaders of the town sending out other young adventurers to fix problems.
I always thought BtW was solidly OSR, but from your AP report it sounds like it led you guys through an "epic story campaign!" as new-school as anything from Hickman and Weis.
I'm glad that you guys had fun and all, but no thank you.
BtW is OSR in that it's compatible with everything. It kills all the parts of OSR that make you play without caring about what's actually happening, though. You have a town full of people to protect, you have past adventures to love up to. You're not a cog in a dungeon crawling machine. You have to play a person.
OSR rulesets are way better than the schlock being pushed by WotC and Paizo (unless you're a buildgay).
The ways the rulesets can be used are just as varied as how folks can use 5e, it's just that OSR rulesets tend to be better in every fricking way.
No I will not embellish. Instead of making a f ucking thread on Ganker where the worst people on the internet dwell you could've just googled this and gotten better answers.