5e Blues (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the OSR)

Even though I dabbled in tabletop games during my high-school years, I didn't really get into the hobby until a few years ago when I finished up my undergraduate education. When I did, I jumped right into the newest iteration of The Game: 5th Edition D&D. While I still host two 5e games a week, over the last year and a half or so I've been steadily replacing my 5e leanings with a host of OSR systems. While others in the G+ blogosphere have written about this far better than I can ever hope to, I wanted to provide my perspective as a relatively new member of the community on the following question: why is the OSR (and old-school versions of the game in general) so much better than 5e?

To me it comes down to a few key approaches in mentality and mechanics:

1. Grounded vs. Fanciful
2. Player action vs. Character action
3. Creativity vs. More Skills

Grounded vs. Fanciful

The overall tone of 5e is probably one of my biggest ongoing problems with it. The closest comparison I can make is comparing Diablo II to Diablo III (action RPG computer games for those who don't know). Diablo II was released in 2000, and had the perfect blend of great art, action, and tonality that kept me hooked for years - playing at night with friends online through middle and early high-school. Diablo III by comparison, was released in 2013, and vast visual upgrades and gameplay changes did the game no favors. The new art style felt like a downgrade, and it changed the tone drastically. Diablo went from feeling like a fantasy-horror RPG splatterfest to a childrens' book version of the same thing.

Screenshot from Diablo II (2000)

Screenshot from Diablo III (2012)

This is one of the main reasons why I love OSR content and systems so much as compared to the 5e system and its content. When I started playing 5e, I was a bit put off by its overly-fanciful nature, but it seemed to be what all the cool people were playing so I stuck with it. As I discovered OSR content however, I realized that I much preferred the "grounded" feeling of its systems and settings. Even when OSR goes full gonzo (I'm looking at you Gathox Vertical Slum), there is still an overall essence to the game that keeps it from feeling whimsical. Things matter here, in a way that the more high-fantasy 5e content can't seem to match. In the same way that Diablo III turned the game from a tense, harsh, and dark affair into something more cartoon-like, 5e took D&D and make it overly whimsical and bland.

Player Initiative vs. Character Initiative / Creativity vs. Many Skills

The other key differentiator for me, and probably the most important, is the difference in how the player/character dichotomy is handled between the OSR systems and 5e.

5e seems to be much more centered around the idea of inhabiting your character's stat sheet, scrolling through a long list of skills and proficiencies, and deciding what to do in a given situation. Success in 5e is highly dependent on choosing the "right skill" for a given situation, rolling well on your dice, and moving forward. Roleplaying is important, but only insofar as "thinking like your character". This is highly limiting, as characters without the right skill makeup for an encounter, or high enough stats that give the player license to say "well my PC would think of this solution because she's smart", are totally left behind.

OSR games take the opposite approach: how situations are handled is determined by what the player can think of, not the character. Skills and abilities are still important, but they often don't determine the success of the party on a dungeon delve or adventure. Success is frequently determined by decisions players make, how they work together as a team, or roleplay effectively. This means finding creative and novel workarounds, planning ahead, and generally engaging more critically with the game or setting. Success means more than properly decoding your skills and their applied bonuses for maximum effect.

Bang vs. Whimper

Combined, the above leads to one major difference - the reason why I DM so much more OSR play now rather than 5e play. OSR play is punchy, in-your-face, and impactful. 5e play is abstracted and after a Warlock's 8-millionth eldritch blast, boring. Every situation overcome, enemy slain, or kingdom toppled in an OSR game means something. You get the rush of knowing that you earned it. When your magic-user casts that crazy spell and wipes out the gang of bloodthirsty mercenaries about to pounce, the whole party goes insane. OSR games, and by extension OSR DMing, has a visceral and evocative feeling that 5e just can't match. I've found that it takes special players to help overcome this feeling of rote-ness.

OSR characters accomplish the mundane with a bang, 5e characters accomplish the fantastic with a whimper.  

How to Get More People Into Our Hobby: Look to Behavior Theory

In my field of academia, we rely a lot on a wide variety of behavior theories in both the construction and examination of programs and studies meant to help people (and communities) change their health for the better.** When we want to get people to quit smoking, use condoms, utilize syringe exchange programs, or change cycles of violence, many times we structure interventions around specific models of how we think human behavior works. These theories and models are all different, and approach behavior change dynamics from an array of viewpoints. Common to many of these theories are several pieces: 

• What are some barriers to changing a behavior? What are some benefits?
• How much control do we have over the behavior? What is our intent?
• What are some internalized and social norms surrounding the behavior?

Looking at these questions, and drawing on my academic background, I've formulated a model that we can go to in order to figure out ways to get more people into our hobby. We could also use a similar theory to help players and GMs with negative tendencies (i.e. trying to control players, severe railroading issues, sexism/racism at the table) change their behaviors as well, though I'll leave that for another time. 

Theory of Nerd Engagement (TNG)

My proposed model for the engagement of New Nerds draws on a few of the heavyweights in the real of behavior theory, namely the Theory of Planned Behavior and Reasoned Action, and the Health Belief Model. I won't go into detail on those two, but below I'll walk you through my thought process for the TNG. 

1. Any person who we want to engage with our hobby will ultimately be informed by their personal history with other nerd-ish hobbies, their own personality traits, and their socio-demographic characteristics. 
2. Those background characteristics may influence a few things: their Cues to Action, their Social Norms, and their Barriers and Benefits.
1. Cues to Action represent the various forces urging them to take part in our hobby. This could be a friend, family member, some YouTube videos, blogs, Reddit, etc.
2. Social Norms represent the broader views of society towards tabletop gaming and other nerd-ish things in general, as well as the person's internalized norms.
3. Barriers and Benefits represent those things that a person might feel would prevent them from engaging with the hobby. Barriers might include things like the potential for sexism and racism, or lack of access to supplies or a group. Benefits could include feelings of belonging, fun, and escapism. 
3. Cues to Action and Social Norms may influence a person's Social Motivation for engaging with the hobby. Here, I termed social motivation to mean a motivation (or lack thereof) that is derived from external forces. 
4. Barriers and Benefits may influence a person's Perceived Control, or how much power they feel they might have over whether or not to take part. 
5. Finally, the combined forces of Social Motivation and Perceived Control might directly affect a newcomer's Willingness to Engage. 

Due to the structure of my proposed framework, there are now a few clear ways that we, as a community and individuals can engage new people.

What We Can Do

Obviously the next step is to formulate "interventions" in order to draw in new people and keep them engaged. Below I'll provide some general thoughts, many of which are already being done by prominent members of the community:

• Address potential barriers
• Provide free or more affordable gaming materials across a wider array of platforms to reach people with low access.
• Weed out players and DMs who foster bigoted attitudes which will keep people away or force newcomers out. 
• Following the point above, broaden our range of cues to action at cons, across the web, or find ways to increase visibility in more mainstream ways. 
• The above may influence broader norms about tabletop roleplaying, and shift attitudes away from the negative. 

What else do you think we can do that would address various points within the framework?

-------------------

**NOTE: I'm not a behavioral psychologist and am most probably not employing these theories in this specific context in the way they were meant to be applied.