Thread #97900582
File: tdn248311pr51.jpg (234.5 KB)
234.5 KB JPG
This thread isn't to argue over what is and isn't OSR. I am using the broad term definition of the term.Let's leave that shit elsewhere.
Now, what I am wondering is what type you like? Are you into simple like B/X clones? Do you like more advanced rules such as 1e/2e? Do you like ultra light like something like knave?
Do you want something that mechanically is more or less a pure clone of a published game? Do you like something that merges some more modern ideas such as a acending AC?
Or do you like stuff like the black hack, tales of argosa or even shadowdark that took the concept of OSR styles but are not built on those mechanics?
This isn't a trolling thread, I am curious on what folks preferences are. What have they read or played they found fun or interesting.
For myself, I need a level of church or fiddly. It makes my brain happy so I don't enjoy something too light. B/X and OSE don't really scratch my itch. I need something at lest AD&D level of fiddly. I thought it might be fun to see where other people landed.
17 RepliesView Thread
Showing all 17 replies.>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97900865
This, ACKS is the only game to come out in the OSR sphere that actually takes things like Gold for XP and Domain Play seriously. While still having a functional dungeon crawler for early levels.
Next best is BECMI / RC D&D.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97900582
I found B/X a bit simple (and quirky in some areas) and AD&D bit overdone (and lacking in some other areas), so I did what everyone did and made their own game. That's my favourite part of the OSR: people just making their own stuff to do exactly what they want, and most of it being cross-compatible / ripe for stealing from.
I prefer the classic, rather limited OSR--a tight focus on dungeon-crawling, gold for XP--rather than the modern "it's all OSR if you really think about it" style. I find it pretty funny that D&D started out as this fairly specific thing and eventually became generic fantasy toolkit game, and then the OSR community appeared to get back to that fairly specific thing, and then new arrivals showed up as it got popular and turned it into generic fantasy toolkit game, and now you've got OSR for OSR (i.e. CAG). But I don't begrudge people doing their own thing, even if I have no idea why anyone would ever want to play Knave or whatever.
>>
>>97901518
>I found B/X a bit simple (and quirky in some areas) and AD&D bit overdone (and lacking in some other areas), so I did what everyone did and made their own game.
Yeah. To be honest OSE does something like that, optionally, but still not as much as I want.
I would say my ideal game is 50% BX, 30% AD&D, 10% stuff stolen from BECMI and 2e, 10% stuff stolen from OSR games
>>
>>97900865
>No game will nail down Gygaxian D&D the way it does.
By having convoluted systems that don't produce the results they promises and that even the creators wouldn't use themselves? Then it really nails Gygaxian D&D.
The stuff I read doesn't share Gary's tone of writing though.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>97901056
>Well there are a lot of versions of D&D. At lest 9
And none of them are "OSR." That's just a label you guys made up to promote hacky rip-offs of D&D and pretend you're playing it in a way that no one ever did. D&D is D&D, and what you're playing are chincy, lazy rip-offs. If you wanna play different games than D&D, there are plenty of good ones out there. I'll never understand why you guys convince yourselves you're playing something else, just because you bought the Walmart brand knock-off of it.