OSR "Rules & Regulations": An Essay on the OSR

[TwoSix]

Well, that's changing things slightly. I strongly note that "human as arbiter" and "speaking naturally' are not the same thing.

If a human is the arbiter, then the resolution of action depends upon their judgement - maybe they'll apply a written rule, or maybe they'll make something up. That arbiter gets to choose.

Contrast this with human as a translator - you speak naturally to the person, who translates your desire into rules-language, and then applies the written rule, rather than their own judgement to resolve the action.

So, which is the important bit - speaking naturally, or having more human judgement in the action resolution?

They're distinct but correlated. It's almost impossible to not speak in rules terms if they're around to be spoken in. If the DM is translating spoken description into rule-ese so he can make his decision, it's going to slip out when he replies, whether he wants to or not.

 

[Gryph]

He's not at all accurate. I have copies of each of the games I mentioned. And each is published under the OGL - which is a contractual licence permitting the use of WotC IP (namely, the SRD).

Have a look at the section 15 statement for each of those games. Each opens by mentioned some iteration or other of the SRD, which is a piece of WotC IP.

The SRD is not in any interesting sense a d20STL concern - that regulated the use of certain WotC-owned trade dress, like the "d20" logo. The OGL transcends the SRD in the sense that other IP owners might release their own IP under the same licence. But in the case of each of the games I mentioned (plus Swords & Wizardry, which I've just checked), and I would be prepared to bet any other retro-clones I haven't mentioned, each is released under the OGL and identifies the SRD as the first item in it section 15 statement.

Which is to say, the blogger is wrong, and has misidentified the legal underpinning for these works - it is not copyright law but contract law.

I mostly agree, but I think the blogger did have a point concerning some expressions of mechanics and copyright. Many of the OSR games, Swords and Wizardry for example, express mechanics that are based on OD&D rather than allowed IP copies of mechanics from the SRD. Just a small quibble because the allowed use of trade dress elements from the SRD/OGL is, I think, the larger enabling construct.

 

[Gryph]

Well, this is why I think that the whole, "lack of structured rules for everything", is not the whole story. I think there's *more* to the OSR desires than just that. Thus my "insufficient to describe the phenomenon". There may be better ways to reach that particular goal, but maybe not better ways to reach a combination of goals.

Also, remember that we are talking about pretending to be elves - a hobby game purely for enjoyment. There is no objective value in the reasons for one's preferences - even if it is a nostalgia-driven thing (And while I'd expect a dose of nostalgia, I think there's more than that, too), so what? It is all for harmless fun, after all. It isn't as if liking a game for nostalgic reasons makes someone a lesser person, or less of a cool gamer, or something. If it gives them joy, well, then they've found some of their joy. If anyone's going to besmirch them for that, I'm calling sour grapes for someone else's happiness.

I honestly believe that a lot of the rhetoric around hard coded rules systems versus free-form DM adjudicated systems is poor attempt to explain a reaction to certain aspects of WoTC D&D. Like a married couple fighting, the first complaints hurled are mostly masks for the deeper reasons. Combine with the, all too human, need to rationalize our preferences into objective realities, you end up with a mess of often meaningless noise.

I have become, after 3 years of running a 4e campaign, an OSR player. I am now running ACKS. Not because I inherently believe that my off the cuff rulings are better than well designed rules from professional game designers; but because the handling time in prep and at the table for 3e or 4e has simply become too great for my taste.

I chose ACKS specifically because it doesn't reject all aspects of modern design in a fit of irrational nostalgia. It layers a few well chosen bits on to a BD&D framework that is a joy for me to run.

To get back to the OP, I read the essay and didn't think it was very good. I also didn't take it as some great edition warring screed but truth is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION], [MENTION=6928]Glyph[/MENTION] - interesting discussion about the OSR.

I think another part of it is this (Umbran, you'll probably disapprove of the jargon): the OSRers don't want the players to be authoring their own challenges. That's storygaming. They want the GM to be in charge of that. I think they mostly don't want playerside metagame mechanics either, both for search and handling reasons and immersion-ish reasons. So the GM is in charge of framing challenges; and the GM is the one who controls the metagame aspects of adjudication. At that point, do we need a whole lot of detailed machinery to try to lock the GM down - or are we better off punting a lot of that to the GM, whose role is pretty big anyway, and relying on neutral refereeing and sound judgement? I think the OSRers go the latter way.

 

[pemerton]

OSRIC relied on both copyright and contract law. Those interested can read the introduction in the freely available PDF.

I mostly agree, but I think the blogger did have a point concerning some expressions of mechanics and copyright. Many of the OSR games, Swords and Wizardry for example, express mechanics that are based on OD&D rather than allowed IP copies of mechanics from the SRD.

My own view is that, in the absence of the OGL, it would be a brave person who published a pocket Players Handbook for 3.0 or 3.5 - it may be possible to express the underlying rules in a way that doesn't infringe on copyrighted text or story elements, nor on trademarks, but I think it would be non-trivial to do so, and not easy to be confident that you had got it right. Whereas the licensing of the SRD under the OGL changes the situation completely. As Ryan Dancey himself conceded, the only thing keeping WotC ahead of rivals in the publication of 3.0 PHBs would be WotC's capacity to produce a more attractive physical product at a cheaper price.

The retro-clones are pretty clear reproductions - content-wise if not layout-wise - of the B/X, OD&D, AD&D etc rulesets. In the absence of the OGL, I think one would have to be similarly cautious about publishing them. For instance, OSRIC v 2 on p 195 has story elements about gnolls and flinds (eg their social structure and political alliances) which are taken straight from the AD&D Monster Manual. And it has stuff about gnomes, on p 5 - for instance, that they can be fighter/illusionists, but if fighter illusionists may not wear any armour better than leather - which combine story elements as well as mechanical elements. In the absence of the SRD being released under the OGL, would this be breaching WotC's copyrights or not? I wouldn't gamble my own bank account on the suggestion that it's not. Whereas the release of all this stuff under the OGL as part of the SRD provides the basis for OSRIC to reproduce the AD&D stuff as open gaming content.

If it was really about copyright law, none of these games would need the SRD and the OGL. Yet they all use them. Of course if in doubt one goes for the belt as well as braces, but I still find this pretty telling.

From WotC's point of view, there may even be an argument that some of these works are in breach of clause 5 of the OGL, because the authors of OSRIC are representing themselves as having authority to introduce, as OGL, content in respect of which they in fact lack that authority (eg the stuff about gnomes). The gnolls stuff is interesting too, because OSRIC declares it as Product Identity to the extent that it is copyrighted work and not derived from the text of the SRD - but to that extent it's arguable that WotC owns the relevant copyrights, and hence that OSRIC is in breach of those copyrights.

Even in the absence of the OGL and SRD it may not be worth WotC's while actually trying to sort all this stuff out. With the OGL and SRD in the mix it's almost certainly not worthwhile - and OSRIC probably helped them sell copies of their deluxe 1st ed AD&d reprints.

 

[Umbran]

I think another part of it is this (Umbran, you'll probably disapprove of the jargon)

I don't so much disapprove, as find ironic. I only disapprove insofar as some folks have defined jargon for themselves rather closely, making the language use a bit of a barrier to entry to the conversation.

the OSRers don't want the players to be authoring their own challenges. That's storygaming. They want the GM to be in charge of that. I think they mostly don't want playerside metagame mechanics either, both for search and handling reasons and immersion-ish reasons. So the GM is in charge of framing challenges; and the GM is the one who controls the metagame aspects of adjudication.

And that's all fine. But we still are left with the question of whether the D&D ruleset is really the best tool for the job. If not, why are the OSR people sticking with that core?

At that point, do we need a whole lot of detailed machinery to try to lock the GM down - or are we better off punting a lot of that to the GM, whose role is pretty big anyway, and relying on neutral refereeing and sound judgement? I think the OSRers go the latter way.

Well, that's an interesting question - ...are *WE* better off...? Who is this "we" of which you speak?

I honestly believe that a lot of the rhetoric around hard coded rules systems versus free-form DM adjudicated systems is poor attempt to explain a reaction to certain aspects of WoTC D&D. Like a married couple fighting, the first complaints hurled are mostly masks for the deeper reasons. Combine with the, all too human, need to rationalize our preferences into objective realities, you end up with a mess of often meaningless noise.

All those are known phenomena, yes. Add to this the empirically observed phenomenon that when you ask someone what their problem is, they will more often not tell you the actual problem, but instead give you their preferred solution.

However, in internet discussion, we can't weed through all that psychology reliably. Sometimes you may have some of these issues, or all, or none, and we here cannot determine which. So, I tend to assume that any individual I'm talking to knows their own desires better than I do - this is an assumption, and has sometimes been proven wrong, but it is the polite way to at least start, until proven otherwise.

 

[Gryph]

[MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION], I thought my post was an answer, of sorts, to the this particular snippet that I quoted from your post

Well, this is why I think that the whole, "lack of structured rules for everything", is not the whole story. I think there's *more* to the OSR desires than just that. Thus my "insufficient to describe the phenomenon". There may be better ways to reach that particular goal, but maybe not better ways to reach a combination of goals.

In that the thread is full of speculation on what the old school wants rather than replies to people actually posting their experiences and desires from the OSR. So it may be a useful reminder that what you think you heard from OSR fans may not be what they were saying.
I must be particularly dense this afternoon, but I do not understand how your response to my post applies to the post.

 

[Gryph]

@pemerton some of the following quote is maybe sorta true and some seems wildly off target to me. The follow on replies are anecdotal and only my experiences with the OSR and playing with a couple dozen OSR players. Small sample size, etc.

I think another part of it is this (Umbran, you'll probably disapprove of the jargon): the OSRers don't want the players to be authoring their own challenges. That's storygaming.

I don't think this is primarily an OSR concern. Sandbox play is very popular with OSR players and relies pretty heavily on players providing goals and making choices on what hooks and challenges they want to pursue. It is common that the those challenges don't exist in a campaign until a player has expressed an interest in pursuing a goal related to that challenge. Also, plenty of story oriented modules in the growing third party module publishing realm.

They want the GM to be in charge of that. I think they mostly don't want playerside metagame mechanics either, both for search and handling reasons and immersion-ish reasons. So the GM is in charge of framing challenges; and the GM is the one who controls the metagame aspects of adjudication.

Well kind of, except spellcasters have always had significant re-framing capabilities. As I understand your GM style, scene framing is the GM's bailiwick though I may be missing a nuance between scene framing and framing challenges. In my experience, metagame mechanics are not a big hit with the OSR. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of 3e devotees who are stridently opposed to playerside metagame mechanics. I don't think they count as an OSR concern so much as a pre-4e concern. I personally have used action points/fate points/style points type meta mechanics in my D&D games when I first saw them used in WHFRP 1e in the mid 80's, but I haven't seen them talked about or used much in OSR games.

At that point, do we need a whole lot of detailed machinery to try to lock the GM down - or are we better off punting a lot of that to the GM, whose role is pretty big anyway, and relying on neutral refereeing and sound judgement? I think the OSRers go the latter way.

I think this is a valid comment on the OSR community though the reasons why different OSR players feel this way varies pretty widely in my experience. Personally, as I posted upthread, its primarily about losing rules bloat and reducing handling time. For a DM I know who has run the same 1e campaign continuously for over 30 years it is pretty damn reactionary. He won't change, its good enough for him, and all new versions are simply money grabs. He, of course, never sees the irony that his campaign is one of the most heavily house-ruled that I have ever seen. I have also heard plenty of "blah, blah, player entitlement" complaints as why they don't like detailed rules. But then I hear them from 3e players about 4e players so, there's plenty of one true wayism to go around?

Right now, I think the best OSR work is being done on games that use OD&D or 1e AD&D as a starting point and apply a light helping of newer design elements in an attempt to find a game that could exist in a world where Gary Gygax was never forced out of TSR and thus the game was only lightly modified/updated over time like Call of Cthulhu has been. I mentioned Adventurer Conqueror King upthread, AS&SH by Jeffrey Talanien and Adventures Dark & Deep by Joseph Bloch are other good, recent examples.

 

[pemerton]

But we still are left with the question of whether the D&D ruleset is really the best tool for the job. If not, why are the OSR people sticking with that core?

Maybe they like dungeon crawls?

On these boards the main OSR-ish poster I'm familiar with is [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION], who seems to like "weird fantasy" gamist dungeon crawling. Classic D&D is probably not a bad ruleset for that!
[MENTION=98071]Gryph[/MENTION], thanks for the interesting reply.

 

[Hussar]

What Wizards of the Coast did was take an experience so open as to allow group improvisation, and turn it into a tabletop game where the players merely pretend that they are the miniature figurines pushed around on a combat grid. Playing D&D began to mean buying all kinds of other stuff. Where figurines were once optional, the new rules made them essential, along with cardboard tiles and an enormous number of supplements. (The newest version of D&D has three different Players Handbooks).1

To put it another way, Dungeons & Dragons has become a game preferring combat to role-playing. It favors prefab characters acquiring new skills and powers over a character that the player comes to identify with; a character whose development determines the course of the game.

Wow. Just wow. People honestly believe this?

Trying to compare 4e to 2e as a money grab when TSR banged out more books in a year than WOTC has for the entire line? Good grief.

Yeah, it's 1999 all over again. WOTC turned D&D into Magic the Gathering.