OSR Is there room in modern gaming for the OSR to bring in new gamers?

[Sacrosanct]

We can come back to this when people say THACO was inferior because it was about hitting better by literally being worse at hitting things or something.

Obviously people will get offended over different things, and my post was a bit tongue in cheek. However, I'm seeing some serious flaws in arguments here. Even if you ignore the "someone criticizing my favorite thing means they are insulting me personally" thing, which I disagree with, there seems to be an assumption or inference that if you criticize anything, then you're a hater of that thing. That simply isn't true. It's absolutely fair for someone to not like how warlords could heal wounds in 4e, but that doesn't mean they hate 4e. That's just a small part of 4e. There are a lot of other things people could like about the system, like it's organization, minions, balance, and tactical combat.

It's also flawed to think the 5e designers forsake 4e completely. That's simply objectively not true based on the number of things in 5e that are clearly inspired by 4e (like at-wills, non-magical healing, etc.). It certainly doesn't seem like 5e gave every other edition more love. Like 1e for example. There's little if anything in 5e that came from AD&D. I suspect attitudes like that are similar to privilege. I.e., "I was used to be the main thing and majority, anything less than me being the majority now means I'm being punished compared to everyone else." If you're used to getting 3/4 of the pie, and now get an equal share, that doesn't mean you're being punished or singled out. I strongly suspect that if ONE D&D wasn't trying to be backwards compatible, we'd hear the same complaints from 5e fans, and how the new system is an insult to all of them. It happens with every major edition change.

I really wish people would avoid trying to rehash edition wars here. We all have favorite editions. Editions that others don't like. They're free to criticize them. If I'm (general me) asking people to not make assumptions about how I feel about a game, then I most certainly shouldn't make assumptions about someone's motivations or beliefs if they don't like the same things I do. I like B/X and AD&D and early 5e. Others don't. No big deal. I don't like the system mastery of 3e or the overwhelming number of PC options of late 5e. Others love it. More power to them; glad they are having fun. The only thing that matters to me is that whatever brings the most people to the hobby I will support, regardless of my personal tastes, because a rising tide rises all ships.

To bring this around to the OP, the answer is yes. Because everyone likes different things. We've seen the success of OSE and Shadowdark as examples. There absolutely is room for an OSR style of play in the current market and to bring new players in. That doesn't mean (and I never implied) that it should be the biggest style of getting people into gaming. That clearly doesn't seem realistic. But there is room.

 

[Sacrosanct]

That B/X derived. Mine to probably but I could maybe do 20.

36 is to much imho.

A few years ago I asked Frank Mentzer if there was anything he could change about BECMI, what would it be. His answer? Cap levels at 20. 36 was just nonsense.

 

[mamba]

Problem is, presenting it as optional rather than core guarantees it'll be ignored by 75% of the DM/player base.

so?

Two equal separate compatible complete games, both core within themeselves and each an optional add-on to the other, is the only way this'll work.

then one of the two will sell considerably less than the other (see your 25% adoption rate above, and that was before it cost additional money)

All that having two games does is create more work / cost and split the player base, neither of which is something WotC wants, so they will stay away from this

 

[Zardnaar]

A few years ago I asked Frank Mentzer if there was anything he could change about BECMI, what would it be. His answer? Cap levels at 20. 36 was just nonsense.

I know. I like 14 in B/X but could go up to 20 I'm not super worried about either number.

14 at least is different.

For modern players 20 is essentially the expectation from 2E on as ELH/4E didn't become standard and one could make arguments for 10-14 as well.

 

[Scribe]

I haven't seen anybody make a "be happy with what you get" argument. The point I do see, and have made myself, is "if D&D doesn't give you what you want there are scores of other games to choose from."

I'm not going to dig it up, but its been mentioned almost word for word "be happy you get anything" in regards to various points of view of 5e and what it is or is not.

Which is fine, it is what it is, and yes there are options out there such as Shadowdark, or simply other systems.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not going to dig it up, but its been mentioned almost word for word "be happy you get anything" in regards to various points of view of 5e and what it is or is not.

Which is fine, it is what it is, and yes there are options out there such as Shadowdark, or simply other systems.

I'm quite happy to do so. And, to be clear: this poster GENUINELY means this in a positive way. This is not taunting. This is, "Well, at least you did get something?"

These races are less important. The core races are assumed to be in every world, unless the DM explicitly removes them. These exotic races are assumed to not exist in any world, unless the DM explicitly adds them.

Dragonborn and Gnomes are less important to the game than Elves and Dwarves. That is by design. Be happy that you have rules for them at all.

So yeah. This is a real thing. People really do straight-up tell you, to your face, that your preferences are less important. That you ought to be glad you even got included at all.

 

[Scribe]

I'm quite happy to do so. And, to be clear: this poster GENUINELY means this in a positive way. This is not taunting. This is, "Well, at least you did get something?"

Oh thats a nice one, like actually kind.

I just get 'I dont like what you like, so you should be thankful you get even a hint of what you enjoy because what you like is bad and you should feel bad.'

 

[ECMO3]

Back during the D&D Next playtest, Mike Mearls openly and intentionally cracked anti-4e edition warrior jokes on a podcast. He very specifically used the phrase "shouting hands back on," which originated from edition warriors hating 4e because the Warlord could actually heal. He followed that with an extremely lame "now I'm being ridiculous," bit he was sincerely using those jokes as a reason for why the Warlord class should not exist. I don't remember which podcast it was, but it did happen.

Likewise, on one of the blog posts about D&D Next, which conveniently got deleted when WotC changed their website for the umpteenth time, another of 5e's designers openly poked fun at the very idea of liking dragonborn, as though only weirdos and crazy people could ever be into them. He ended that blog post with the oh-so-magnanimous stance of saying (more or less) that there was no accounting for taste.

Yeah. The 5e designers were more than once actively signalling "4e fans are not welcome here." They made plenty of motions as though that weren't true, sure. But nobody else got actively crapped on the way 4e fans did.

The "big tent" is a big, ahem, alternative fact.

So the claim was that the staff "ignored, rejected and openly mocked people"

Mocking a class or a race or a version of the game is not the same as mocking "people". Telling people they will not get their way is not the same as "mocking" people and it is actually the opposite of "ignoring" people.

"Signaling" is again inconsistent with "openly" doing something.

Your suggestion that 5E designers openly poked fun at people and implied that only wierdos and crazy people could be into Dragonborn would or at least could be "mocking people" although as a citation, I would appreciate the specific statement in context. Also as a point of fact Dragonborn have been in 5E since the PHB.

Finally, IMO 4E D&D was awful. The Warlord class was awful. The Dragonborn is not awful and while it is not my favorite race, I have played them. Those are my opinions though and stating such, or even excluding them from my table is not the same as mocking people. 4E players are welcome at my table, but the 4E game and any version of the Warlord class, even if it is published by WOTC for 5E, probably won't be.

 

[ECMO3]

So yeah. This is a real thing. People really do straight-up tell you, to your face, that your preferences are less important. That you ought to be glad you even got included at all.

Who on the 5E staff says this "straight-up .... to your face".

If you are making statements like this, and accusing people, you should back that up with dates, and the exact wording.

Also, as far as Gnomes being unimportant, wasn't 4E the edition where Gnomes were just wiped off the face of the Forgotten Realms?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Who on the 5E staff says this "straight-up .... to your face".

If you are making statements like this, and accusing people, you should back that up with dates, and the exact wording.

I did not say the staff said that. I said people did. You are conflating different comments I made in different places. And I consider a forum post just as much "to my face" as a spoken word. If you don't, fine, but that's your problem, not mine.

Also, as far as Gnomes being unimportant, wasn't 4E the edition where Gnomes were just wiped off the face of the Forgotten Realms?

Nope! Yet another blatant edition war screed people accept uncritically without actually knowing what happened.

There were no rules for PC gnomes in 4e PHB1. There were some monster entries that were gnomes. (A very small joke was made about this in an animation, with the gnome saying "rawr, I'm a monster!") Gnomes were included in PHB2 less than a year later. Every official book of 4e was core content, so it was literally like 9-10 months wait to get full support. That was the same book that offered Barbarian, Bard, Druid, and Sorcerer.

Such hyperbole, "wiped off the face of the Forgotten Realms," often spoken in total ignorance, is not uncommon either.

Edit: But this thread is neither the time nor the place to continue this discussion. I had intended to leave it with what I had already said. I will definitely say no more about it in this thread now. If you wish to discuss it further, a new thread can be started for it.