The Myth of OSR Lethality
OSR games aren’t lethal, modern players have incorrect game assumptions. It’s about agency, not lethality.
The myth of OSR lethality:
"I want a reasonable expectation that my character can live. I want to invest in them."
This is what I hear from most modern players that have some exposure to the OSR (“Old School Renaissance”). This is a reasonable expectation and how most people enjoy the hobby today.
I feel that people view "old school" lethality through a modern lens. I believe it would benefit us modern players to "turn a (modern gaming concept) completely on it's head" as Matt Finch says.
For some in the OSR, they really do like the player challenge aspect. They like that their characters can die, "life is cheap." This is entertaining for some.
But for others, old school games provide plenty of enjoyment and features aside from just player challenge and suspense.
Old school games and gaming style:
Emphasize player choice and agency
Are minimalist and approachable
Often require less prep and work on the part of both players and game masters
Create procedures for the world such as random tables and reaction rolls that can surprise both the GM and allow a story to “emerge” rather than relying on a pre-written plot.
There’s a lot to appreciate about old school design principles that emphasize exploration and wonder over combat and action. So, can you also enjoy roleplaying and in depth character development? Does it have to be so lethal?
I don't think it is lethal.
In a modern game if you discover a pirate map that says "here be dragons", in all likelihood the Game Master has prepared for a possibility that the characters will go there in the story. The dragon, it's story, and encounters have been placed there FOR the characters to fit around them. Balance, as they say.
In an old school game the dragon is simply there. Level 1, level 10, it doesn't matter. It's there regardless of if your character exists. In this way, there's an opportunity for adult "make-believe" rather than a curated roleplaying experience. It is as if the fantasy world is real. What you do with that is up to you.
Do you decide to gather a warband and march on the dragon's lair at level 1? You are all incinerated! Is the game lethal? Or did the *players* decide to make it that way?
I propose that old school games are *not as lethal as they have a reputation to be*. They are rather *honest.* The *players* have the responsibility for deciding how lethal of an experience they want.
OSR games are about *agency*, not *lethality*.
Please also see this previous Reddit thread by “amp108” in 2020 by the same name:
https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/fjyd16/the_myth_of_osr_lethality/
I'm not plugged into enough OSR sub-communities to pretend to know where we are today on this subject and how we got here, but even as of 10 or so years ago, I've maintained the impression that the OSR's bend toward lethality is actually pretty simple, and was not (at least initially) contrived. Maybe there is is post-hoc reasoning going on to try and explain it, but I personally don't think it needs any explaining.
When reading early D&D editions, just noticing that a level 1 wizard has between 1 and 4 HP, and dies at 0, and the default weapon damage for all weapons is 1d6... I mean there's no getting around the lethal significance of that; other than never entering combat. Even a fighting man guarding a wizard is more than likely to have fewer than 6 HP. And I believe level 1 THAC0 worked out to a about a 50% chance to hit or be hit by an orc (but I have to confirm that). These games weren't lethal because there was some kind of DM culture promoting game lethality, they were lethal because of the probabilities. They were lethal because wargaming models were expected to die on the battlefield, and that's where the combat rules originated.
And pretty soon, it wasn't popular and every new edition of D&D reduced the lethality.
"I want a reasonable expectation that my character can live. I want to invest in them."
I'll never know (maybe resarching old Judge's Guild articles might reveal anecdotal evidence), but my hunch is that your line here is the reason why lethality was unpopular. So I do agree with you. But my impression of the OSR leaning into lethality is two-fold:
1) They want to play with the old rules, which have some real benefits, despite the lethality
2) They want to be able to embrace those rules; not to shy away from them
"I want my character to live" has been the status quo for decades now. I remember when 3rd edition came out and people mocked the old editions of D&D. In fact, I believe Wizards had a TV commercial doing that. The widespread idea was that there were bugs in the older editions that have since been fixed by the newer, better versions.
When people started to rediscover old-school, they started to appreciate some of the really great implications of the original design that modern versions of D&D failed to understand. A lethal rules-set was one of them. This was their way to say that the status quo wasn't actually "right"; it was just one style of play. The OSR style was another style of play for those interested.
And of course there's everything in-between. There's nothing that says anyone has to be pure OSR or pure.... well whatever the cool kids are doing with 5E these days. It's very video game like.
So I want to say that the core of OSR really is "lethality by probability" just down to the rules, but anyone is free to tinker and either come up with play processes that reduce the amount that those rules are applied, or tweak the math to lower the lethality. It can still be pretty much OSR, but it's hard for me to agree that it's like.... O.S.R. Hope this ramble made any sense.