This is a review of the Player’s Handbook for the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons. It’s taken me a while get my sweaty fingers on the book… a long while. In the meantime there have been plenty of reviews and the great majority are overwhelmingly positive.
But what does this mean?
I’m a roleplayer who’s preferred each generation of D&D over the one that came before. I did not like the original D&D sets and only started to play the granddaddy of the hobby until it evolved into 3e.
I didn’t like all the inconsistent, often unnecessary, rules nor did I like the fact you were simply handled a randomly generated algorithm which you had to guide through algorithmically challenging landscapes. That’s to say; I’m not a min-maxer. I appreciate that’s the challenge for many gamers – building a character that survives the horrors the DM throws. It’s not for me; I need a sense of creation and ownership.
I preferred 4e to 3e. Wow! Makes me a loner, huh?
I liked 4e because it was designed that no one was a fifth wheel. I pushed that concept to the limit by being a Warlord (a buffer of others) in a three party group. I still had plenty to do. D&D 5e manages this trick too. When I tried AD&D after playing 3e for a bit the situation was the opposite. My character would just be an accessory until he levelled up.
I saw no downside to the suggestion 4e had learned from the millions of dollars and millions of new players from the world of MMOs. The good news is that D&D 5e still has also this wisdom plus the hindsight of D&D 4e.
However, the OSR movement bloomed. I’ve no problem with OSR but I just don’t get it. I’ve asked many OSR fans what it is – and get different answers. OSR stands for (most of the time) Old School Renaissance. The concept is that RPGs have strayed too far from the path that made them great. It is time to go back to how they used to be.
In my Arrows of Indra interview with RPGPundit he described OSR has unpretentious. I took from that the hint of a suggestion that newer games might struggle with that a little. He said;
But another reason why old-school is so big (big enough that WoTC has hired known advocates of Old School as consultants for their new edition of D&D, or reprinted their older editions and opened up their pdf catalogue to huge sales results) is that this type of RPG is more relaxed, faster (character creation takes a couple of minutes instead of sometimes hours), unpretentious, generally more casual and thus more suitable to gamers who don’t have time to pore over 30 books in order to figure out how to play a game or “build” an “optimized” character, and tremendously fun.
Geek Native ran a survey on OSR and what it means to gamers. The polls still live and you can answer here and affect the study.
The issue of being pretentious was examined again. As I write this blog post today some 32 out of 36 gamers said OSR was about making RPGs less pretentious. D&D 5e does not feel pretentious. The game, however, does encourage gender and sexual equality and moves away from chainmail bikinis. Does that make 5e pretentious?
At the time of writing 35 out of 41 said OSR is about making gamers simpler. D&D 5e certainly feels simple. Is it simpler than D&D 4e? It’s about the same… before you add in any extra books.
The last stat I’ll pull out of the survey was one which asked whether OSR was about roleplaying games that do not require high levels of commitment. 30 out of 34 agreed. D&D 5e certainly doesn’t demand your soul. You could play a game of D&D 5e in the same amount of time as you could D&D 4e or the Storyteller System, Savage Worlds or Fate Core. In fact, 5&5e proves that neither system nor theme has much of an effect on the levels of commitment needed for a game.
It’s worth noting that I’m picking survey answers here when the OSR community had some agreement. Most of the time there wasn’t. 50/50 splits on what is OSR and what is not OSR are common.
So, why do I think D&D 5e suggests that OSR is just a construct – a scarecrow of an argument to artificially create good and bad tropes? After all; there is no “New Style”.
D&D 5e feels entirely modern and yet it appeals widely to many of the OSR stalwarts. It is one of the evolved RPGs in terms of flavour and rules. That said; D&D 5e draws on the previous editions of the game.
Character Generation
After an introduction of a few pages (Wizards of the Coast are lumped with the responsibility of introduce roleplaying to newbies) we start with Creating a Character. Pick a Race, Class, Determine Ability Scores, Describe Your Character, Choose Equipment and Come Together.
There are loads of classes in D&D 5e. Pretty much all the iconic types of characters are here; Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock and Wizard. You’ll find something there. Here’s a prediction; there will be new classes in later books. Psionics, for example. I’m confident of this because I’m sure Wizards of the Coast will introduce setting books later on and these seem to be the perfect route to add in more core classes.
The same is true of races. Pick from dwarf, elf, halfling, human, dragonborn, gnome, half-elf, half-orc and tiefling. There are sub-races for many; hill dwarf and mountain dwarf. There is a good reason to play a human – all your ability scores get a boost.
The classic alignment system is back. You can be lawful good through to neutral and on to chaotic evil. Mixed feelings about this as the Old Testament approach to motivation is a bit simplistic but, yeah, I suppose this is archetypical D&D 5e.
Alignments are part of the fourth step of character generation – backgrounds. This entire chapter feels like WotC trying hard to ensure that D&D characters are more than algorithms. You can be a male drow cleric (despite that not being normal) but players need to think about why and how such a character needs to exist. I don’t think this is pretentious. I think this is what good roleplaying is about.
Backgrounds have a tangible impact on game play too. They are more than flavour – offering skill proficiencies, equipment and language modifiers. This slows down character generation but not terribly much. There are even random tables for personality trait suggestions. For example; your acolyte could be prone to misquoting sacred texts given half a chance.
Ability Scores, by default, are rolled. Players should roll 4d6 and take the best 3 dice. This roll is done for each ability. The result, of course, is a character that’s better than average but with some bumps. I’m not so sure about this but D&D also allows you to assign the values 15, 14, 13, 12, 10 and 8 instead. I think assignment would be quicker and fair by Wizards of the Coast have given us the choice.
This key section of book is entirely modern. It takes an enlightened view to character generation. It does not hark back to the min-max challenges of early RPGs. You could put an OSR and a storyteller at the same table, with these rules and they’d still enjoy creating a character. How’s that for success?
Playing D&D 5th edition
Part 1 of the book is all about creating your character. It takes 6 chapters. It takes half as long to describe the rules of the game; chapters 7 to 9.
The second third of book kicks off by describing how these newly generated ability scores actually work in the game. The new mechanic of Advantages and Disadvantages is a favourite of mine. Got an Advantage? Roll 2d20 and take the best one. Suffering a Disadvantage? Roll 2d20 and use the worst.
Chapter 8 is all about “adventuring”. Wizards don’t call this “mutual theatre” or anything like that. They’re clear; D&D 5e is about adventures. We’re concerned with issues like keeping track of time, social interaction and what happens between adventures.
It’s good to see the Between Adventures section but this is not Ars Magica. The Player’s Handbook does not naturally lend itself to multiple characters per player and legacies.
The rest of this section is about combat. Combat tends to be the most common peril in the adventure – you know; the dragons part of Dungeons & Dragons. Once again 5e takes the OSR-approved approach to including as many of the “core rules”, no matter how unlikely, in the same book. As a result we’ve their finally tuned combat system which includes sections for mounted combat and even underwater combat.
Thoughts on the system so far – it works very well. The Advantages and Disadvantage 2d20 didn’t at first feel very much like D&D. Everything else did. Now I’ve played a few games the extra dice system feels like a perfect fit for the game. Characters take risks and chances to earn that extra d20. It actually encourages storytelling in otherwise dull melee as players describe manoeuvres.
At this point in the book there’s not much more to add – and yet there’s more than 100 pages to go. So what fills up the rest?
Magic and Spells
The last chunk of the Player’s Handbook discusses magic. This is a return to a “spell slot” system to magic – harking back to D&D that oldies like myself will remember.
There’s a twist or two though as these are expandable spell slots. In other words; you can put lower level spells in higher level spaces and enjoy the rewards. This creates a whole sub-game of spell mastery and planning that’ll put off some but appeal to others.
I think the addition of cantrips is a brilliant idea too. These are low level spells that you can cast again and again. I had a dwarf cleric that terrorised a bunch of goblins by forcing them to save again and again or take a zap. The situation meant that those pesky minions had to be pro-active and plot to get me.
Cantrips aren’t big in power but they are big in flavour.
It doesn’t take a hundred pages to explain how the magic system works. The rest of section is full with lists of spells. This approach means that future books will certainly include new spells. I think it’s an easier approach.
Wrapping up
There are important bits and bobs in the book that don’t fit into these main sections. There’s a light scattering of gods, for example.
A big plus in favour of the Player’s Handbook is the book itself. This is a hardback wonder with a strangely tactile back cover. The layout is impressive; dauntingly so for others in the industry. The art is first class and liberally implied.
It’s easy to see why D&D 5e is impressing people.
D&D 5e isn’t OSR. It does not remind me of old RPGs; it feels entirely modern. This isn’t a step back but does carry forward the feeling of old D&D.
I think D&D 5e rather proves that there is no such thing as OSR. There is nostalgia. There are gaming styles that suit certain game designs but those styles aren’t trapped in one time zone or another.
I suggest that the word “adventure” is what fond memories of early RPGs conjure up. It’s not about the time to create a character or how long you have to play for. D&D 5e is designed so that you can feel a great sense of ownership of your character without having to have a degree in mathematics to create her. D&D 5e’s Player’s Guide is designed so that the focus of the game is on the adventurers the group’s characters have.
Overall? Strong recommendation.
The video tour of the D&D Player’s Handbook below was created with Google’s Auto Awesome. Colour filters and effects have been applied to the art.
Update: Predictably, this post has drawn some welcome commentary from the OSR community. I wrote “I think D&d 5e” rather proves there is no such thing as OSR.” and in hindsight would like to unpick that further. There’s clearly the OSR community and movement.
I think OSR is best defined by that group and the tastes therein. That definition copes with the fact that members within the group may have mutually exclusive ideas of what their OSR is. I don’t think there’s one united, agreed on, definition of what counts as ‘OSR’. OSR is a movement and I think D&D 5e shows that you can design RPGs that appeal to that community without having to be a retro-clone of a 30 year-old game. As such, I don’t think there is a set of game construction rules called OSR.
My copy of Dungeons & Dragons Player’s Handbook was provided for review.
Keep scrolling to discover what others think about this article.
Seriously, do you even know what the OSR is? Because this article plainly shows you do not.
Vincent Florio WotC doesn’t even know what the OSR is.
Well I suspected it since the first time I read a Phillip K. Dick Novel, But thanks for confirming it. I and an entire community don’t actually exist.
The OSR doesn’t exist? Ah shit, I’ll hate to be the bearer of bad news with my DCC RPG and Swords & Wizardry playing group when we get back together next month … oh wait? I guess we won’t be getting together after all, because the games we like to play don’t actually exist. Man, this is hard.
Damnit what am I going to do with my DCC, Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC, Dark Dungeons, Blood & Treasure, Sine Nomine collection, Swords & Wizardry Complete and C&C collections now that I just found out OSR doesn’t exist? Crap. Well, I do love 5E, but I gotta admit, I don’t really follow how it’s existence negates the ongoing OSR community which has been in full bloom since roughly 2004.
I appreciate what you seem to be trying to grope toward here, but it is seriously undercut by your apparent misunderstanding of what the OSR and old school gaming is in the first place. It isn’t nostalgia, or at least that is not a major component of it for most people. There is, indeed, an identifiable “New Style”, or rather several new styles, that can be contrasted with an Old School way (or, again, several old school approaches, possibly related to each other) of playing roleplaying games. No one has yet categorized all of them, and of course individual people… Read more »
Vincent Florio Thanks for your comment Vincent. I don’t know if you’ve had time to read all of the post or all of Tenkar’s assessment but I do say that I don’t get what OSR is. I suggest also that the community doesn’t either; as pro-OSR can disagree each other.
It’s an interesting debate and one that seems to rile people. I’d welcome having you pop back and sharing a two or three sentence summary of what OSR is and which people agree on. Perhaps use the games suggested by toribergquist as a measure for inclusion.
toribergquist Hi, thanks for taking your time to comment. You’re right. I talked a lot about the OSR community and the poll Geek Native ran trying to define what OSR is. Then I say that OSR doesn’t exist.
I’ve clarified that now with a comment at the end of the post. I believe the OSR community exists. There are a set of games which that community (generally likes). I still don’t think there’s an OSR game design procedure though.
Faoladh Thanks for taking the time to offer a well thought out comment and sharing it over at Tenkar’s Tavern. I’ve updated this post to reflect that the OSR community clearly exists. I think it’s also pretty clear that there’s a host of books that that community (by and large) accepts as OSR. Like you, though, I’m still not sure there is any particular element that is “old school”. I don’t think there is an OSR game design guide (if there was; surely D&D 5e doesn’t follow it). Your comment inspired me to go Googling and see if I could… Read more »
What was the point of all that?
Yes 5e is closer to 2e than it is 4e, but why does that invalidate anything to do with OSR stuff?
Yes OSR us a label used by different groups for different things. Why does that mean it doesn’t exist. Role playing is a term used to mean wildly different things by different groups thay doesnt meam there’s no such thing.
I guess I’m struggling with why you would choose to write about something you clearly know little about in a review about something else entirely?
AndrewGirdwood You’re probably thinking of the Caller, which was an office of convenience, as it were. In the early days, it was not unknown for a single DM to be refereeing a game of upwards of 10 to 15 players. As you may be aware, this is not an easy thing for an individual DM to do. One of the solutions to this matter was to have a single player who would act as the interface between the body of players and the DM (and, frequently, as the party leader, simply assigning routine jobs without discussion – though the players could… Read more »
sholden Thanks for the comment. There’s been a lot of interest in how D&D 5e and OSR intertwine. WotC even hired consultants from the OSR community for the project. It’s worked too. The OSR community seems, largely, to have welcomed it. Does that mean D&D 5e is an OSR RPG though? Do gamers who aren’t such huge OSR fans still have a chance of liking the latest edition? There are gamers like me who prefer the newer editions; yes, even D&D 4e. The review tackles those points. Tries to, anyway. My takeaway from reading the book was that non-OSR fans… Read more »
Faoladh That’s it! The Caller. My brain was clearly too distracted by all the comments and I was wasting my searches on terms like “The Talker” and “The Speaker”.
I wonder if any recent RPG includes a Caller role.
AndrewGirdwood I can’t think of a recent RPG that assumes a play group of that size, so it doesn’t seem like it would be necessary. And if a particular game had a group of that size, then it seems like the role would very likely evolve naturally in play.
That said, I plan on retaining the rather particular rules on the subject found in the original in my Fantasy Wargaming retroclone, as they serve several purposes there in addition to the Caller function. I haven’t gotten to that chapter yet, though.
AndrewGirdwood OK, I think I see one issue. I do think that there is an identifiable “old school”, though I agree that it can’t be defined by any one particular element. It is a whole approach to game play and (to a lesser extent) to game design. I touch on some of the elements, most in a negative fashion (it doesn’t include this, it doesn’t include that) in my first post here, and those things can’t be understood in isolation. The emphasis on sandbox play over imposed storylines, the de-emphasis on party roles (on the character sheet, at least), the lack… Read more »
Faoladh I really like your “sandbox / no sandbox” comparison as a way to get to the heart of the matter. That works even if there’s no single rule or particular element that defines OSR. You may not agree with me but I’d suggest that leans on OSR being a style of play. The difference between a style of play and a construct/type of game/scarecrow to support it is up for debate but I’d suggest it’s slim. I think one of the reasons OSR was looked so intently at for D&D 5e was, in part, due to the commercial power the… Read more »
@Ron_A I talked about the OSR community at the start of the post – but have added an update to show that the OSR community certainly exists. You’re suggesting you are also OSR? Perhaps OSR is a mindset first and foremost and the community are those who have it.
Can we define the mindset though? It feels to me that it’s more like a style of play rather than a style of game.
@matt agreed.
AndrewGirdwood Perhaps you can conceive of it as a style of play, but the rules either support that style or they don’t. For instance, extended character creation is not particularly valuable in sandbox play, unlike story-oriented play, since the loss of a character requires extra effort to replace, meaning that character losses don’t just function as “redshirts” to give clues as to the dangers and weaknesses of a particular location (I will, however, note that my favorite sandbox-based RPG, Traveller, has one of the most extended character creation systems of any pre-1980 game, especially when one must account for characters dying… Read more »
AndrewGirdwood Sure! The OSR is defined by each person in a different way. No one person can define the OSR, it’s not a set of rules or a certain game. The OSR is basically the spirit of how games were played back in the late ’70s and early ’80s, and applying that towards all the games you play. The style of the OSR is that you are only limited by what your imagination is, not what the book says you can do. Just because its not written down in that book, or another book doesn’t mean you can’t do it. A… Read more »
Vincent Florio I think that’s a great description of OSR. Odd as it seems – I think we’re in broad agreement. OSR isn’t a rulebook style, a set processes or tropes – it’s something else. You call it a spirit of how games were played. I call it a construct to describe how some gamers like their games played. Pretty similar, I think.
@Nick J Hi Nick, thanks for your comment. I’ve updated the post to make it clear that the OSR community exists.
I argue that OSR is a construct/scarecrow/straw man. In the comments in this post others argue it’s more of a spirit of gameplay. That may be true but I think we’re getting down to synonyms. Do you think OSR is something else?
To be honest AndrewGirdwood, your entire thesis in this article is really quite lost. Are you trying to discuss and state that 5e is not an OSR game or are you trying to state that there is no such thing as the OSR? You make too many conflicting statements at odds with other statements even within the same article for the article to really make any sense. And the fact there is no ONE TRUE DEFINITION doesn’t mean that something doesn’t exist. Look to the medical community and how diseases and disorders are diagnosed and identified. The anecdotal evidence of something… Read more »
The proof that the OSR exists is right here in the comments to this post – those that identify themselves as part of the OSR community (and it is but a very small sampling of that community) the more tangible proofs, if we can call it that, are the sheer number of retroclones to be found, many for free: http://taxidermicowlbear.weebly.com/dd-retroclones.html As for a universal definition of “What is the OSR?” that is much like herding cats – many in the OSR community have their own ideas, but they are all OSR. My definition on the matter would be no more… Read more »
jasonpaulmccartan I argue that OSR is a construct/a straw man/a scarecrow – or as others have suggested in the comments OSR is a style of game play. I think D&D 5e rather underlines that point as it eschews many of the tropes commonly associated with “OSR games”.
It would be great if you could point out a contradiction or two from the review. I make no claims to being a persuasive writer but would certainly like to learn from any errors.
I’m the author of the Basic Fantasy RPG. I say that not to claim some authority, but merely to show my perspective… I was OSR before there was an OSR. We don’t all agree on what OSR means exactly, but there are core elements that are critical to a proper Old School experience. I’ve been known to argue that the most important element is GM Fiat. In the beginning, the players were told that the GM was always right, even having the power to change the rules. The early games were light on detail (the Swords & Wizardry website uses… Read more »
AndrewGirdwood I’ll go with that.
AndrewGirdwood Vincent Florio I’m actually working on a highly academic definition and analysis of what the OSR in the same approach that game theorists use (as game theory is part of my academic area of interest). The initial capsule definition I have is: “The OSR can relate to either:Games, ludic devices, and support products A particular style of gameplay using games in (1) The larger community that plays (1) using (2)” There’s a lot more that comes after that that breaks down exactly what goes into these, but these are essentially the three things that make up the OSR: games that… Read more »
Erik Tenkar I appreciate you took the time to leave a comment here. I read your post Tavern with interest. I’m not suggesting the OSR community doesn’t exist. In hindsight that wasn’t clear from the D&D 5e review. I didn’t think it would be an issue or cause for debate. After all, I made a number of references to it in the review. I’ve updated my post with an amendment at the bottom to make that clearer. You disagree with the thoughts about OSR I had while mulling over D&D 5e. I suggest it’s a construct/a scarecrow/a straw-man. Aside from… Read more »
Solomoriah Some great insight there, thanks. I appreciate you taking the time to wrestle with Livefyre (the comment platform) and sharing your thoughts!
Elsewhere in these comments we’ve talked about whether OSR really is a scarecrow/straw-man/construct or a style/spirit. I think there’s plenty of common ground. I’m glad you’ve mentioned ‘experience’. That’s an important element too.
jasonpaulmccartan Vincent Florio That’s an interesting definition and pretty compelling.
You clearly have plenty of expertise at this – so forgive a potentially silly question – is definition point #1 necessary when you have definition point #2?
If you have both does it mean it is no longer “OSR” if you play a retroclone in an unusual way because you now fail to fulfil the expectations of point #2? Equally, if you take an RPG that’s not ‘accepted’ as OSR and use it to emulate an old school dungeon crawl then you’re not OSR because the game itself fails to qualify?
AndrewGirdwood Yes, #1 is necessary when you have #2. #1 takes about the physical artifacts of play such as games that include the rules, mechanics, character sheets etc. There may also be guidelines on specific ways to play the game, meted out from the rules and the game design. This creates one philosophy of play. #2 however allows you to have a different philosophy of play that sits atop games. The way one group plays a game is very different from another. Some may play the game as a full-on dungeon-crawl and no character to character interaction. Others yet, use the… Read more »
AndrewGirdwood toribergquist Thanks for your follow-up on this. FWIW I think the OSR community is best defined as a group of people with a common interest in the style and methodology of role-playing games exhibited in the formative years of the hobby. It covers a lot more than D&D in this sense (I am a big fan of Chaosium systems such as Call of Cthulhu and Runequest, for example, both of which are archetypal examples of OSR gaming from back in the day). I think attempts to define the OSR in the context of game design fail because there was no… Read more »
AndrewGirdwood With all due respect, I don’t understand the “scarecrow/straw man” reference in this case. A straw man argument utilizes an imaginary person; for the OSR to be a straw man, it would have to be imaginary. But we exist. Even if we can’t agree on what the boundaries of our community are, nonetheless we are entirely real. We create publications (whether game systems or adventures or supplements), we have conventions, we argue with each other and sometimes we even agree. Therefore, the OSR cannot be a straw man. And again, with all due respect, as you are someone who… Read more »
Solomoriah I’m sure there are no shortage of gamers who first played D&D on 3e. It wasn’t my first RPG. The scarecrow argument is this – there’s no actual RPG type “OSR” but it is instead defined by the scarecrow, the not-OSR, alternative. If it is accepted by the community then it’s OSR. If it’s not then it’s not OSR. There’s no real set of rules or tropes that define OSR. There’s just the scarecrow of what’s not OSR. On reflection; many people are coming to this post with the sense that this review is an attack on the community. It… Read more »
“I think D&D 5e rather proves that there is no such thing as OSR. ”
Your words, Andrew.
The OSR is a community first and foremost. A creative and very lively community. At its most simple definition, it is a community that enjoys and plays old school and old school “feel” games. Stop at that point and 99% will agree.
Wait. First the scarecrow was the OSR. Now you say not – OSR is the scarecrow?
Erik Tenkar I’m glad we can agree on the 99%. That’s great. My experience with the OSR community previously has been pretty great too. Gamers are generally open minded folk and not normally loaded with such vitriol. “I think D&D 5e rather proves that there is no such thing as OSR. ” are my words exactly. Verbatim. Too the letter. I didn’t mean the community.That was pretty clear. Now, after my update and dialogue here, it is crystal clear. Do you agree? This post has highlighted the importance of being clear. I think it is important for me to really spell… Read more »
AndrewGirdwood Erik Tenkar First of all, Andrew, you’re using “straw man” wrong. A straw man argument involves redefining the original proposition (the one you are arguing against) to make it easier to attack. Wikipedia has an excellent example. The OSR cannot be a straw man by any definition I can find. Some members of the OSR may argue against the New School by means of such arguments, but to describe the entire community that way because some members use invalid arguments is, well, an invalid argument. You said: “The scarecrow argument is this – there’s no actual RPG type “OSR” but… Read more »
Solomoriah AndrewGirdwood Erik Tenkar I appreciate my use of scarecrow/straw man was sloppy (I hadn’t even heard ‘Aunt Sally’ until I read up wikipedia) but does that really justify the attack piece?
I thought my intent was clear – but apparently not. That’s okay. I can live with that. What bothers me is the suggestion I dismissed an entire community. Attack pieces are not my style. I hope that’s been clarified now.
AndrewGirdwood Perhaps a way to resolve this would be to write a follow-up piece that allows you a chance to articulate and restate in a new article your thoughts in one single place rather than spread across responding to lots of comments where things get fractured by everyone commenting?
jasonpaulmccartan I think that’s a really good idea. I may well do so.
I’m slightly cautious about kicking the nest again – some of the comments elsewhere haven’t been as educated as the ones here. This clearly is an engaging issue, a hot topic, one worthy of proper consideration and articulation.
AndrewGirdwood I think you’ll find that while many people strong opinions about this and there are perhaps some pedagogues and those who rail, the vast majority of people are more interested in having pleasant discourse and communication about it and educating: this is an actualized facet of old school gaming itself in the way that playing and experiencing the game is passed down in a mentor-mentee type relationship between experienced players and new players (and there are aspects of apprenticeship in old school gaming as well). You may want to hang out around some of the OSR communities that are available… Read more »
AndrewGirdwood Erik Tenkar Andrew, I’ll call attention to what you said in your original blog post: “So, why do I think D&D 5e suggests that OSR is just a construct – a scarecrow of an argument to artificially create good and bad tropes? After all; there is no “New Style”. “D&D 5e feels entirely modern and yet it appeals widely to many of the OSR stalwarts. It is one of the evolved RPGs in terms of flavour and rules. That said; D&D 5e draws on the previous editions of the game.” I’ve read some of the 5E materials, though not enough… Read more »
Thanks jasonpaulmccartan, really useful insight. I appreciate the time you’ve put into this.
Solomoriah That really is going back yoinks, isn’t it! Maybe I should wait for a calmer day and then try and entice a history of Basic Fantasy RPG from you as a guest post for the site!
I’m going to take a stab at the true intent of your comparing the OSR to 5e. Assuming each edition of D&D invalidates the previous, as new editions inevitably mean the older editions will no longer be developed and are out of print AND one of the driving forces of the OSR is keeping classic rule sets in print, constantly developed and keeping a flow of content for older editions, IF 5e is close enough to those classic rule sets to be a valid substitute for such rulesets to be accepted by the OSR, there is no longer a need… Read more »
And just to show that there’s no problem with diversity in the community actually working together properly, I feel that 5e is an OSR game. And Tenkar and I run an OSR podcast together, play games together, and we’re BOTH creators. As are many others that have posted here.
jasonpaulmccartan That’s always good to see – I always have time for a community that allows different opinions. Thanks for your level head on your comments here Jason.
@matt Vincent Florio
It do get the sense from the choice of poll questions that you are having trouble grasping the appeal of the OSR. I say that because I didn’t see any questions that really reflected important aspects of OSR gaming. Sure the rules are (usually) simpler and character creation is (usually) not as involved as later editions, but the key value in OSR games, (especially OD&D) is their open ended flexibility and customizeability at all levels – from classes to rules to campaigns. Further, OSR games facilitate a minimum of narrative interruption because players play their characters and have no reason… Read more »