GeekNative is a fairly well trafficked blog of geeky and gamey things. Today, thanks to the eyes of The Badger, the latest GeekNative post was brought to my attention. It's titled:
Yeah, the title confused me too, but at least you can use the link to read the article in total as opposed to just the snippets I'll be responding to. And why is "OSR" referred to in the past tense? Where is the "the"?
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.See, already I'm confused, as this statement initially infers he's played each edition of D&D, and always preferred each subsequent edition, and then states he only started playing with 3e. Yes, there is a reason that I point this inconsistency out.
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?
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.First off, the author admits he doesn't get the OSR. It's not some much going back as it is continuing to play older rules, their clones and derivatives. New rules don't need to mean better, and old rules don't need to mean worse.
Next, we move on to a survey he conducted asking about different aspects of the OSR, and than uses each answer to show how 5e fits the same criteria. Read the original article for these bits, then return here. In any case, it comes back to this:
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.Does the author understand that the OSR predates 5e? Does he realize that folks have been playing the original rules since they were first published? The resurgence of old school play with the advent of the OSR clones has roots in 3e and the OGL, not in 5e.
But wait, heres the kicker. The author tells us the OSR doesn't exist:
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.
There you have it folks. 5e proves that the OSR doesn't exist. No more need to try and define it. Time to close the OSR community pages, blogs, publishers, forums and podcasts. Andrew Girdwood has just written the OSR out of existence.
Next post - what to do when your community is written out of existence ;)
Next post - what to do when your community is written out of existence ;)

































.jpeg)



