OD&D A question for players of both OSR & Modern FRPGs

Azgulor

Adventurer
I’m an avid Pathfinder 2 game master, recently converted from PF1. It’s facilitated some of the most exciting and dynamic scenarios in my 35+ years of gaming. However, I’m almost exclusively on the GM-side of the screen and, silly as it may sound, playing the Pathfinder Kingmaker CRPG underscored my desire to play.

I’m exploring VTT play but having also found Solo OSR, I’m looking at solo RPG play. As much as I love Pathfinder, I decided it was too crunchy for solo play. I quickly settled on the idea that I want a pulp-fantasy/heroic-fantasy game and decidedly NOT high-fantasy.

With Solo OSR and this criteria in mind, I’ve picked two systems that I’ll try to see what might be a good fit: Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperboria (AS&SH) and Adventurer Conqueror King-ACKS (with the pulp-fantasy expansions).

My question is this: For players of both OSR & modern FRPGs like PF & 5e, do you enjoy/appreciate both or do you find yourself feeling unsatisfied with the OSR options?

My instincts are that I can enjoy each for what they are but I haven’t played a B/X or AD&D game in over 25 years. I wonder if my assessment of AS&SH & ACKS is viewed through rose-colored glasses of nostalgia and with a few sessions under my belt, the desire for “modern design” is going to get in my way. I really think the two games I’ve picked are my best option, though, as PF2 is too crunchy and 5e classes are so magic-prevalent I don’t think either lend themselves to solo play and especially not towards pulp-fantasy/heroic-fantasy.

Opinions from the veterans with experience in both sides of the aisle?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Azgulor

Adventurer
Oh, and I suppose I should mention that if I make the determination that I "need" that modern FRPG design, I'd be looking at converting 5e to pulp fantasy. With AS&SH & ACKS, the work is done for me (the appeal) but being based on older rules, I wonder about "seeing the flaws" (the concern).
 




ART!

Deluxe Unhuman
My question is this: For players of both OSR & modern FRPGs like PF & 5e, do you enjoy/appreciate both or do you find yourself feeling unsatisfied with the OSR options?

[...] I really think the two games I’ve picked are my best option, though, as PF2 is too crunchy and 5e classes are so magic-prevalent I don’t think either lend themselves to solo play and especially not towards pulp-fantasy/heroic-fantasy.

I think my ideal sort-of-D&D-ish system would focus on that OSR "the answer isn't on your character sheet" approach, with something like Dramatic Cortex dynamics, and various ideas from 5E and PF2.
 

When I'm playing a modern game like D&D, I am happy. I don't get annoyed over ascending armor class or dwarves getting to be wizards. When I'm playing a game like DCC RPG, I don't find myself thinking "oh, I wish I had feats" or "if only I could play a tiefling." Instead it takes me back to my older days of gaming. They're two different flavors. Sometimes I'm in the mood for sushi, sometimes I like a hearty soup.

My experience is that there are so many OSR options out there at this point that it's pretty easy to find one that ticks most, if not all, of your "must-have" boxes. There are so many different permutations and variants, whether you want to model OD&D, Moldvay/Holmes, BECMI, 1e.
 

JiffyPopTart

Bree-Yark
My mind equates OSR with illogical restrictions.

I don't hate the systems and still play the 2e in Baldur's Gate games happily, but the expansion of possibilities in modern game design has me not wanting to revisit it as my personal choice.
 



Remove ads

Top