Are OSR games right for you? In many ways this should have been my "game musings" article 0 rather than 4, but oddly I never stopped to think of the question when I started writing this series. You may think that because I am a lover of such games I would say "yes" to the title question with no hesitation, but really it isn't that simple.
OSR (Old School Retroclone/Revival/Renaissance/R-etc) games, specifically those based on old styles of D&D, provide one flavor of game experience. I find it to be a very enjoyable flavor, but it certainly isn't the only way to play RPGs or even the right way; it just has the distinction of being tied back, by rules and themes, to the oldest style of play. I don't plan to delve into the history of D&D, RPGs, or the OSR movement here. There are plenty of resources out there to pursue that. Instead, I want to look at the factors that make an OSR D&D style game and then discuss what such a game is and isn't, and why you may want to play in this style or instead try something else.
Before going further, a solid definition of the games I am focusing on is probably in order. OSR D&D games tend to look back at the B/X (Basic and Expert) rules set published in 1983 by TSR for Dungeons and Dragons and then re released in different forms through OSR publishers. These rules were a refinement and a stripping down of the original D&D and the AD&D 1E games. OSR games also borrowing from other forms of D&D that would come later to expand options (such as splitting classes from races). Some of these OSR games are extremely close to the original B/X (Labyrinth Lords and B/X Essentials come to mind for this) and others rework them for a specific style (here we can site Dungeon Crawl Classics and Lamentations of the Flame Princess). Still others use the basic mechanics in a very stripped down version (such as Knave and the Black Hack). One advantage all of these systems share is a great interchangeability of parts such as classes, magic items, monsters, and house rules. If something is missing from one published game then just nick it from another. Also because of the light rules framework that makes up the game's core, it is very easy to tack on a house rule without having to change many aspects of the game to make that hack work.
It is good to have a definition, but none of that background covers what the games tend to focus on. OSR games were originally based on pulp fantasy sword and sorcery genre hero stories and tabletop wargames. So the tend to be combat and action focused adventure stories with the rewards being winning over adversity, typically physically but also through guile, and gaining treasure. They have a high focus on overcoming difficulties that seem overwhelming, and in many way survival is part of the reward. So, a neat answer would be that OSR are games of exploration, combat, problem solving, and survival before the backdrop of fantastic settings. The characters are actors in a greater world that goes on around them, but in any adventure they take the center stage.
OSR focus more on the "game" aspect of RPGs than many games that come after will. When coupled with the high lethality at low character level play there is less of a focus on character background. A few sketchy facts going in are generally enough to start the character. The characters greatness lies in its present and future, not its pre-game past. With that said, because of the rules light nature, and the fact that the rules really just focus on the central aspects of play (exploration and combat) roleplaying is essential to flesh out the rest of the character. In the B/X system there are a couple simple one roll mechanic, geared to pass fail resolutions, that come into play when a character needs to exercise an ability that isn't outlined elsewhere, but there are no systems for advancing those abilities. They are either very general and the same for all characters (listen successes at 1 in 6) or static for a character (roll under ability score on a d20). Both of these work admirably for the simplest core version of the game where the combat and exploration is going to be 90% if the game focus, but fall short when a game expands past the "adventure" or includes adventure aspects that aren't immediate action. Also many players want their character to advance in non adventure abilities as they level.
Various writers (some of which go back to the official TSR days of D&D) have worked on other systems of non combat action resolution with various levels of acceptance and success, and some OSR have embraced skill systems that are found in newer versions of the D&D game (or even adopted ones from non D&D products), but these are lacking in the core OSR model. Again though, due to its modular nature such systems are fairly easy to add.
OSR games are very good for playing action forward proactive characters that live in the moment. Dungeon delvers, explorers, skirmishers, and fantasy military units all fit into the categories this game style excels at.
Games that focus heavily on crisis of morality/personal character growth, extended social or political power play, or highly detailed combat scenarios are very poor matches for OSR systems. Even with various hacks there are other games that fit these needs better. And that is good. It is actually very good. It is better a GM is matched with a game that suits their writing style and a player is matched with a game that will truly be fun for them.
GM Hobs Game Musings Index
No comments:
Post a Comment