OSR Why B/X?

[Micah Sweet]

I would say those are more straight out of place isolated high tech in fantasy rather than common integrated magitech civilization stuff like in Eberron though.

That type of stuff straight tech mix is present in Swords and Sorcery stories (I think there is a German steampunk dimensional traveller in Lankhmar at one point), but you don't have elemental trains or such in most.



Are warforged and artificers going to be in the new 2024 PHs as default options? I was disappointed warforged did not make it into the 2015 PH.

They likely would be if WotC's wasn't afraid of their fanbase.

 

[GreyLord]

I was talking about @Retreater conflating "old" and "old school."

I don't consider actual 2E old school even if you did give XP for gold, because its design intent was not old school. But you could run an old school style game using the 2E rules. But it is clear by the 2e publications that it was not intended to replicate the early game. But then neither was much of latter 1E or BECMI.

All 2e originally was, was 1e cleaned up and cut down to it's core components.

To say 2e core was not Old School is to say 1e AD&D was not Old School.

It is a ridiculous statement.

NOW...once you start adding kits, powers, skills, etc...you may make an argument, but just arguing 2e wasn't Old School...as someone who has played every version since OD&D (and indeed, still has their OD&D books)...

The statement that 2e is not Old School is absolutely ridiculous as a statement.

If we want "Eras" then they would be a little different than what I see listed.

1970-1975 - The Wargamer years (the influencial years on D&D...no real D&D expansion or players, but the seeds of it are laid).

1976 - D&D grows (early Old School years)

1977 - 1985 (Old School years)- Gygax Years (this is the Old School if you want to talk about Old School. Some get offended about Dragonlance or UA, but they are still Old School Stuff. Old School wasn't just about a specific type of gameplay or playing in a dungeon. It included all sorts of playstyles and craziness. Blackmoor and Greyhawk both had their epics, their ensuing campaigns, their stories, and other things. Dragonlance was something different, but it was also a continuation of the same thing. It was just a different world. I personally LOVED Dragonlance more than Greyhawk AND Blackmoor).

1986 - 1989 - Late Old School years (here you still have the pure essence of AD&D and D&D running around. You could still get 1e and BECMI books and boxes. You also had the new core rules which basically was the 1e rules but boiled down and in some cases made a tad easier [read initiative] for new players to grasp.

1990 - 1999 (Okay, now things get weird years) - You have an explosion of creativity in regards to different universes and worlds (Dark Sun, Plane Scape, Spell Jammer and more...none of which really took my fancy at the time). I think it still was compatible...and really still gelled with Old School D&D up until you get Skills and Powers and the rest of that stuff. Then it just started to get wonky.

2000+ - New D&D era. This is basically a different game presented with the same titles and words as TSR D&D. It's called D&D, but it's WotC/Hasbro D&D now. This is when you actually start seeing the movement for OSR. It was HERE that it actually started (people seem to put it's start later than this, but when 3e comes out, within weeks people see that it's a different game than what came before and THAT's when you actually start seeing people start trying to recreate the AD&D game in various methods and ways. Thus what came before this year is what most would consider the inspiration for OSR [though skills and powers is not something I've seen many clamor for] and the basics of it going back to the beginning.

B/X is probably the cleanest of the old TSR games as it KISS and gives ideas of how to extrapolate beyond the levels given if one wants to in a very easy and simple manner.

 

[Neonchameleon]

All 2e originally was, was 1e cleaned up and cut down to it's core components.

No it wasn't. 2e was a rework for the playstyles that were common in the late 80s, post the departure of Gygax, and post the Dragonlance Saga. It took some of the more useful things from Unearthed Arcana (whether weapon specialisation, specialist casters, or non-weapon proficiencies), dropped some of the devils and demons - and changed the basic playstyle from a dungeon based game where you were adventuring for loot and directly got XP for GP to an encounter based game where XP for GP was, rather than the driving engine for the players, demoted to an optional rule and characters were rewarded for doing things suchj as casting spells.

It was more than a simple cleanup and cut down. And if you approach both games cold they are very different

 

[Reynard]

All 2e originally was, was 1e cleaned up and cut down to it's core components.

This strongly suggests that you haven't looked at your 2E core books in a long time.

 

[GreyLord]

No it wasn't. 2e was a rework for the playstyles that were common in the late 80s, post the departure of Gygax, and post the Dragonlance Saga. It took some of the more useful things from Unearthed Arcana (whether weapon specialisation, specialist casters, or non-weapon proficiencies), dropped some of the devils and demons - and changed the basic playstyle from a dungeon based game where you were adventuring for loot and directly got XP for GP to an encounter based game where XP for GP was, rather than the driving engine for the players, demoted to an optional rule and characters were rewarded for doing things suchj as casting spells.

It was more than a simple cleanup and cut down. And if you approach both games cold they are very different

To THINK that everyone played it as a Dungeon game, even in 1975-1983 is someone who DID NOT PLAY D&D or AD&D back then.

Period. Dot.

It wasn't a Dungeon Based game...even when the 3 LBBs came out. Trying to prescribe a SPECIFIC gamestyle on everyone who played back then is inherently misunderstanding HOW the game was played and WHAT the game even was.

I saw all sorts of different playstyles and ways to play. I saw how the old guard played (and believe it or not, there are times I don't think Gygax actually used the XP as per monsters or GP given as some would believe, but tailored it more towards encounters and game sessions...BIG SHOCK!!! I know).

The 2e core rules basically compiled 1e rules into a core rule set.

AS for Session XP, that was originally alluded to in the 1e DMG near the end of how XP was awarded. It gave out numbers and how it was, and then finally states that the actual award is DETERMINED by the DM. It then, in the training area, explains about how the characters acted can determine how much of a reward a DM may actually award. This was further extrapolated upon later in articles and other such arenas.

This was NOT a new item introduced in 2e. By the time of the early 80s it was actually quite regularly seen among D&D groups.

In the 2e DMG, When it is explicitly stated how players earn XP it gives two methods though (even though it suggests DMs determine the awards in the short sections prior to it). Thes are individual and group rewards, with the first of these identified as the XP gained from Killing monsters (same as 1e, though the actual XP granted is greatly simplified in how it is presented and thus different by a strictly numbers sense than it was in 1e).

It then goes into more detail on Story awards (that the amount should NOT exceed that XP gained from killing monsters. This was probably put into the books because by the mid 80s some groups were giving LARGE amounts of XP at the DM's whims in some groups rather than from book values. It specifies that a story award at maximum should award no more than 1/10 that needed for the next level.

The other caution given is in regards to XP for gold awards. It had been noted by several authors in Dragon and other locations concerning "Monty Haul" games (which is ironic, as per the rumors, Gygax did both Monty Haul games and DM grants a ton of XP games...so both of these ideas could be seen as anti-Gygaxian ideas in some ways). The specific warning about XP for gold, which is given as another option for those to gain XP in AD&D 2e is that "One XP can be given per gold piece or equivalent, found. However, overuse of this option can increase the tendency to give out too much treasure in the campaign."

This strongly suggests that you haven't looked at your 2E core books in a long time.

Seeing I played it last night...I'd say you are EXTREMELY wrong on that suggestion.

This biggest problems I see in some of the assumptions being made and those trying to say 2e is not Old School is that they do not understand how 1e worked when it was the primary form of AD&D, nor how it was played in general. They ascribe a specific way of how they saw it as played, and assume EVERYONE played it that way, when it wasn't even played that way in the adventures put forth in many instances (for example, Temple of Elemental Evil obviously has some great dungeons, but there's also a large part that happens in the overland, the wilderness, and town of the area).

It's like those who try to say 2e created THAC0, not understanding that THAC0 has been around since the 1e DMG and there were adventures that actually also presented it and used it, as well as groups that started using it early on as well, just for simplicity.

The final nail in the coffin is (for those of us who actually were AROUND and PLAYED it back then) that 1e was EXPLICITLY grandfathered into 2e. Any 1e rules that you wanted to play were stated to be allowed with the 2e rules if you wanted (as if we actually needed that permission...we didn't. But...they gave permission anyways). That's how we played Dragonlance in 2e originally, with the old Dragonlance modules and rules with 2e.

I just entered a 1e spell into a contest here on ENworld (and apparently NO ONE noticed that it was actually a 1e spell, which tells me how many actually really look into their books and are familiar with the layout of 1e these days). I've been in my 1e and 2e books and play both these days. Sometimes I wonder how many groups of us are actually left.

I ADMIT, I'm not really into the OSR scene (my take, is if I have the rules for the original games they are based on, why should I play the copycats rather than the actual game itself?), but for those that are, trying to say AD&D 2e is not Old School seems like an absolutely ridiculous claim to me. This coming from someone who actually still plays those games, rather than the OSR games that are based on them.

 

[Reynard]

If you started with 1E there is a continuity that allowed you to play 2E in a way like you did 1E (however that is). But if you started with 2E and then looked backward, stylistically and in the published adventure design they are very different games.

 

[Mannahnin]

I ADMIT, I'm not really into the OSR scene (my take, is if I have the rules for the original games they are based on, why should I play the copycats rather than the actual game itself?),

The OSR started with the original games, and appreciation and analysis of them was the whole focus at first. Stuff like Philotomy's Musings on OD&D and explaining its assumptions and treating them with respect rather than treating them as archaic or dumb. The original retroclones (OSRIC* especially, Basic Fantasy and Labyrinth Lord to a lesser extent) were primarily just to help folks play the original editions and buy new copies of old school rules for new players if they wanted them, during a period when drivethru reprints weren't reliably available yet.

The idea that Retroclones are the point of the OSR is a misconception. The whole retroclone movement was an offshoot. It just gets a lot of press because it keeps providing people new stuff to buy, and because that new stuff has to be marketed.

(*"Old School Reference and Index Compilation"; it wasn't even trying to pretend to be a new game- far from it)

but for those that are, trying to say AD&D 2e is not Old School seems like an absolutely ridiculous claim to me. This coming from someone who actually still plays those games, rather than the OSR games that are based on them.

I get that it's a ridiculous claim to you. You apparently don't remember the widespread rejection of 2E in the 80s by 1E players uninterested in switching/updating. You were evidently part of the percentage which liked 2E and carried over your older-school sensibilities to the newer edition while just using the cleaner mechanics. I expect that you disregarded the changes to the XP system.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To THINK that everyone played it as a Dungeon game, even in 1975-1983 is someone who DID NOT PLAY D&D or AD&D back then.

Period. Dot.

And this is simultaneously a strawman and a shift of goalposts. oD&D, B/X, and 1e were written to be dungeon exploration games where you gained XP by obtaining loot. This is how Gygax played the game, how Gygax wrote the game, and Gygax taught the game - but Gygax's writing was not always clear. You could play them as adventure path games. Meanwhile 2e is written to be an adventure path or worldbuilding game that you could play as a mercenary dungeon adventure game.

2e, far from being a cleaned up game was when the actual Old School style that Gygax played, wrote, and taught was explicitly forced into the back seat. And the OSR is explicitly about going back to the old school Lake Geneva style.

Pretending that 2e was unchanged is an outright attempt to erase old school play.

The 2e core rules basically compiled 1e rules into a core rule set.

No it didn't. It represented the triumph of encounter based play over dungeon adventures. It was a change in philosophy from the old school to what was and is still the default.

This was NOT a new item introduced in 2e. By the time of the early 80s it was actually quite regularly seen among D&D groups.

Oh, indeed. It was however not an old school thing. It was new. It is now Trad - and is what is used in 5e. The Old School looks back past that to the playstyle that this supplanted and that you are attempting to erase.

This biggest problems I see in some of the assumptions being made and those trying to say 2e is not Old School is that they do not understand how 1e worked when it was the primary form of AD&D, nor how it was played in general.

Or they do. And you simply don't understand the explicit intent of the OSR and are instead trying to erase the Old School style for what came to dominate afterwards.

They ascribe a specific way of how they saw it as played, and assume EVERYONE played it that way,

This is a pure strawman. The OSR and Old School in general digs right back to the Lake Geneva playstyle and things consistent with that.

when it wasn't even played that way in the adventures put forth in many instances (for example, Temple of Elemental Evil obviously has some great dungeons, but there's also a large part that happens in the overland, the wilderness, and town of the area).

Believe it or not Wilderness was part of the dungeon experience. Partly because of the Test Your Luck nature.

I ADMIT, I'm not really into the OSR scene

Well that's pretty obvious. I'm not into it either, but mostly because I find the politics and frequently the aesthetics highly unpleasant. That doesn't mean I don't respect the design.

(my take, is if I have the rules for the original games they are based on, why should I play the copycats rather than the actual game itself?),

Because Gygax was a great developer but not a very good designer. And because they can focus on and draw out the parts of the design that are interesting and were displaced and forced into the back seat by 2e.

but for those that are, trying to say AD&D 2e is not Old School seems like an absolutely ridiculous claim to me. This coming from someone who actually still plays those games, rather than the OSR games that are based on them.

It's not just about the games - but the way they were played. The way you are trying to deprecate if not outright erase.

 

[Parmandur]

If you started with 1E there is a continuity that allowed you to play 2E in a way like you did 1E (however that is). But if you started with 2E and then looked backward, stylistically and in the published adventure design they are very different games.

I believe @GreyLord started before 1E: he is an OG, Lake Geneva crew.

 

[Reynard]

I believe @GreyLord started before 1E: he is an OG, Lake Geneva crew.

Which makes it an even stranger assertion that 2E was just 1E compiled and cleaned up. I maintain that the only way to assert that is to have ignored the shift in style and play focus that occurred during the 2E era, either because one had already made that shift (the Hickman Revolution did not come out of nowhere) or because one simply ignored the particulars and used 2E to continue to play in the old school style.