Over the past year or so I’ve been doing a lot of reading of OSR modules, OSR rules and articles about OSR style play on the internet. This is the second in what will likely be a series about OSR style games, why I’m interested in them, etc. See also part 1.
My first post on the topic of the OSR emphasised the hexcrawl aspects of exploration. Another aspect of exploration which is emphasised in the OSR systems I’ve read is where the players handling mapping.
That is – instead of the GM/DM drawing out the dungeon on a grid for their players to navigate, it becomes the responsibility of the players, or their nominated cartographer, to draw a map of the dungeon as they explore.
When running dungeon crawls in Pathfinder and 5th edition D&D I’ve found the experience both boring and frustrating as the players discover dead ends and uninteresting rooms by moving pieces around the map like a board game. It is my hope and expectation that by having the players handle mapping of the dungeon themselves this will lead to a more immersive and engaging exploration experience, where the space between the dungeon rooms can be just as interesting as the rooms themselves.
Despite my general enthusiasm there are some aspects of OSR style games/rules that don’t excite me so much. The first is the simplified player options available. Fewer classes and race-as-class leaves relatively little room for mechanical differentiation between characters, especially in very lightweight rules systems like LotFP.
I know for my fellow players and I there’s enjoyment to be had in crafting a character and getting excited about which customisation options to choose at level increments. I can’t help but feel like the options available in the OSR rules systems I’ve read aren’t as exciting or inspiring of character concepts as those present in D&D 5th edition and Pathfinder.
I don’t think it’s unfair to suggest that there’s a “game within the game” when it comes to creating and levelling up characters that my group all enjoy and I’m in no rush to run a game using a system which doesn’t support that.
Another element I find less appealing, at least when dreaming up a long-term campaign, is the tone of many OSR games. This has been niggling at me for some time but became easier to put into words when David McGrogan recently posted “Fantastical Tone: The Hobbit or The Call of Cthulhu?“.
In the post he discusses the optimistic tone of The Hobbit and the more pessimistic tone of Call of Cthulu, stating that
Most if not all OSR settings draw on the “Call of Cthulhu” well much more than that of The Hobbit.
This analysis certainly matches my, admittedly limited, experience of OSR products. I happen to believe that the OSR/DIY D&D products I own are far better RPG books than the books I own from major publishers. They are highly playable products which make me want to game whilst reading them, however I can’t help but find the overall tone a little more depressing than I want to be immersed in for my games. The Hobbit approach to adventure resonates much more with me and the style of game I want to run and play in.
There are many aspects of OSR gaming which appeal to me. What I’d like to do is find a way to make use of most, if not all, of those positive aspects without giving up on the rich player customisation options available in more modern D&D variants.