OSR OSR Gripes

Umbran · Jul 10, 2019

Celebrim said:
We eventually learned that a character was only going to be playable in the long run if:

Do we all here realize that there's a whole lot buried in "playable in the long run"? What does that mean?

There's an entire set of assumptions buried in this phrase about personal and group play styles and desires.

Celebrim · Jul 10, 2019

Umbran said:
Do we all here realize that there's a whole lot buried in "playable in the long run"? What does that mean?

There's an entire set of assumptions buried in this phrase about personal and group play styles and desires.

Maybe...

Again, I'm assuming that there is a group of players who are more or less peers, and what the group is usually doing is having adventures, often in dungeons, against foes that at least occasionally challenge them, and that those adventures more or less resemble the sort that were published as examples of play commonly called 'modules'.

So yes, that's a lot of assumptions - not solo play, not focused on internal character introspection or exploration (what the character thinks about themselves and the world), not ensemble or troupe play where the player willingly plays a sidekick or ward of a the actual protagonist, etc. But considered we are supposedly talking about "old skool D&D" I don't think they are unreasonable assumptions.

Further, I've already sort of prompted for some possible rules changes or processes of play that would alter the math. For example, one take on the problem is that the DM could see that a particular character couldn't carry spot light or equal weight and so create for that character a story role and create party balance by DM fiat. For example, if some player insisted on playing a character with nothing higher than a 14 in a party that was evolving toward very strong and successful characters with high stats, then I could do something like say that the character was the long lost prince about which many prophecies spoke and that he inherited a +4 sword of sharpness which only could be wielded by one of the blood. Now, I've essentially gifted the player some character powers and party balance of the spotlight is restored. So yeah, I can get that there are ways around that, but what I can say is that while that's utterly obvious to me now I don't know of any DMs back then for which that sort of thing was utterly obvious, nor do I suspect everyone that I played with would have been happy about such "DM favoritism". Certainly that is a process of play that wasn't widely talked about at the time.

Tony Vargas · Jul 10, 2019

Celebrim said:
The rules don't suck because we don't ever use them!

Stick a finger in it, like the Little Dutch Boy, and save your campaign from the suck.

What I am saying is that along with the fun I remember over the 10-15 years of steady play a grow sense that we could and ought to do better.

I'm with you there. I have the stereotypical D-ring binder stuffed with variants sitting a in a storage box to prove it.

And for example, as a subtle case of me perhaps agreeing that a change harmed a play style, linear XP requirements compared to exponential XP requirements made the whole 'all new characters start at 1st level' pretty much something you couldn't do because new characters never caught up enough under a linear scale.

Linear XP is not a variant I recall encountering, it would seem problematic in exactly that way, though.

But much of the analysis from both the crowd I can hear and the crowd I can't, has nothing to do with rules and their effects and everything to do with the attitude of the participants - for which you don't need OSR. And no one so far has stepped on up and even offered as much of analysis as I just did talking about the change in XP to level and how it impacts how you can play the game.

Rules /can/ encourage a certain attitude, though, usually indirectly. For instance, the 5e "play-loop," which casually gives the DM license to narrate success/failure at whim rather than call for checks (under the rubric of uncertainty, a DM can also feel uncertain all the time and constantly call for checks - Empowerment, y'know), can encourage a comparatively old-school style of play in which the players carefully describe their intended actions (possibly going so far as to ask exacting/leading questions to set them up), to maximize the chance that the DM will make a call in their favor. The classic game didn't have the play loop, not formally, it just lacked rules that players could count on (or even have knowledge of) to give them a knowable chance of success by simply invoking a mechanic (which the DM might take behind the screen, anyway) - but it led to that style enough that 5e design also sought to encourage it.

Celebrim · Jul 10, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Rules /can/ encourage a certain attitude, though, usually indirectly.

Totally on board with that.

What I typically find talking to the OSR crowd is the assertion that rules alone create the game, and there is some very tight relationship between the game created by 3e or 5e or OSR and a certain attitude of play. So for example, they'll make an assertion like, "Old games were more challenging than new games." when challenge is obviously a function of encounter design and not rule set. Played straight up by ruthless GMs, Pathfinder adventure paths are every bit or even more challenging that just about anything that was thrown at me or which I would have thrown at players, with brutal encounters that if you go in unprepared for are begging to be TPKs. Sometimes I think that's less to do with intentional challenge than just sloppy playtesting, but still, challenge is obviously not just a result of the rules. I've talked to CoC players that had spellbooks and regularly cast 'reanimate dead' and played CoC like D&D dungeon crawls.

Likewise, proposition filters that refuse propositions like "I make a search check" or "I make a diplomacy" check are not functions of the rules. They are functions of the meta-rules that I call "processes of play". How a table decides to apply the rules is a very complicated discussion, but to say that "carefully describing their intended actions after asking for clarification before acting" is a matter of the rules and not a matter of the processes of play is to IMO be utterly unreflective about how you play a game. I mean, that's how we play 3e and Pathfinder, something I'm frequently told by OSR advocates is impossible.

You are correct in some ways that the old games didn't tightly specific the processes of play, which is one of the reasons that they could play out so differently at different tables. On the other hand, I consider Gygax's example of play in the DMG one of the most clear outlines of the intended process of play in the history of gaming, and a standard modern games like FATE could learn from, not just because it explained what play should look like, but clearly described the game that the game intended to create in a way that I think FATE often fails (that is to say, FATE's creators intend to create one game, but often fail to realize that they created a different one, something that glares at me from their examples of play both in the book and when watching the game played).

Tony Vargas · Jul 10, 2019

Celebrim said:
... still, challenge is obviously not just a result of the rules.

Likewise, proposition filters that refuse propositions like "I make a search check" or "I make a diplomacy" check are not functions of the rules.

I think I follow you, but, isn't the complete lack of anything like a diplomacy check a case of a rule filtering out the proposition?

They are functions of the meta-rules that I call "processes of play". How a table decides to apply the rules is a very complicated discussion, but to say that "carefully describing their intended actions after asking for clarification before acting" is a matter of the rules and not a matter of the processes of play is to IMO be utterly unreflective about how you play a game. I mean, that's how we play 3e and Pathfinder, something I'm frequently told by OSR advocates is impossible.

It's certainly not impossible to play PF that way, it's just /also/ possible to just use the skill checks and fill in the details after the check determines success/failure.

One issue you run into when DMs start talking about why a system "doesn't let them" do something or "doesn't support the style," is not because it in any way prevents it, but because it also offers alternatives that are so much easier or better that /they can't keep their players on the reservation/.

I consider Gygax's example of play in the DMG one of the most clear outlines of the intended process of play in the history of gaming, and a standard modern games like FATE could learn from, not just because it explained what play should look like, but clearly described the game that the game intended to create in a way that I think FATE often fails (that is to say, FATE's creators intend to create one game, but often fail to realize that they created a different one, something that glares at me from their examples of play both in the book and when watching the game played).

Doesn't that include the "Caller?" I've never seen anyone play with a caller - usually all I get if I mention the concept is blank looks. Or is it the Party A/B example? (Where everyone in party A's name started with A... easy to follow if nothing else.)

ParanoydStyle · Jul 10, 2019

The whole OSR movement is something that I enjoy and find fascinating but I haven't actually ever played or run any OSR game. I have read through several, however. OSR games have the same problem as RPGs in general: there are too damn many of them and too few hours in the day. LotFP is super memorable for its attitude, and its system looks good, but I've seen or even own 2-4 other OSR systems that I've given a good once over and their systems seemed crisp and functional but I've never played them. I was actually working on my own retroclone, Halberd d12 for a while (I'd been exposed to 5th Ed and Pathfinder in rapid succession and was feeling very inspired to build "my" D&D) but I stopped work on the project for the same reason I went so long without starting it in the first place: there are just too many damn retroclones. The world does not need my very-slightly-different OSR fantasy heartbreaker. I have other games to make that are exponentially less redundant.

I guess if I have a thought here it's that the frustration with not being able to do things more than twice a day is not a problem unique to OSR style games. Right now my 5th Edition PC is a 3rd Level Warlock--well, she's female so I wrote "Witch" on the character sheet--it's my first time playing a Warlock in 5th Edition, and actually, I think probably ever. I can cast two spells a day and I won't be getting a 3rd spell slot per day until like 11th level. I mean, I must acknowledge that Warlocks do get other good stuff, like cantrips and invocations and various class features, but I had not realized it was not a "real"/"full" casting class until three sessions into playing one. My bad, but as I seldom get to PC--or more accurately, I plan on PCing seldom and DMing far more often--it is kind of a bummer.

I know it's not really comparable to playing a 1st level Wizard in OD&D, AD&D, or any retroclone, where you can cast two spells a day and also die in one hit to virtually anything.

Zardnaar · Jul 10, 2019

You know warlock spells recharge on a short rest? At level 11 you probably get 9 5th level spells a day assuming 2 short rests.

Quickleaf · Jul 10, 2019

Retreater said:
I'm wondering "where's the fun?" in OSR games like Labyrinth Lord/Swords and Wizardry?

Using your wits to avoid rolling dice, and solving situations through creative thinking. That's where the fun is. In OSR games, when you're confronted with a challenge, you don't look to your character sheet first; rather, you look to your own ingenuity first.

Celebrim · Jul 10, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
I think I follow you, but, isn't the complete lack of anything like a diplomacy check a case of a rule filtering out the proposition?

I'm inclined to agree that if the rules don't provide a 'move' then you can't directly reference the move, which is interesting and something I'm going to have to think about. But the reverse is not true. Just because the rules provide a 'move' doesn't mean that the table's proposition filter allows you to directly access the move without indicating the specific fictional positioning you are taking up.

However, 1e AD&D did have a diplomacy check and at times I used it as one. 1e AD&D had a reaction test, which could be made more generic than its specifically called out usages. And further, remember that most 1e AD&D tables improvised some sort of skill check at least some of the time as an ad hoc ruling. The most common of which was rolling an ability score or below. This procedure wasn't explicitly laid out in the rules, but it does critically show up in published examples of play - those modules that I was talking about. So conceivably you could have "old skool" tables where it was a valid proposition that a GM would have acted on for a player to declare, "I want to make a charisma test to convince the guard to let us through the gate after dark." Whether a GM allowed that, or whether they would have done something like my preferred procedure of RP in character first to earn your fortune test, or whether they would tend to prefer a procedure of IC conversation only, or whether they accept as valid a proposition like, "I try to convince the guard to open the postern gate by explaining we are on an important mission for the temple." is not something that the rules of the game really specified. It was up to the DM to decide what the proposition filter would be.

And frankly, it still is. That hasn't changed at all despite changes in the rules.

It's certainly not impossible to play PF that way, it's just /also/ possible to just use the skill checks and fill in the details after the check determines success/failure.

Yes, but as I just outlined, it was possible to play that way in 1e AD&D as well and I saw example of it - not used consistently, but certainly examples - as far back as the late '80s.

One issue you run into when DMs start talking about why a system "doesn't let them" do something or "doesn't support the style," is not because it in any way prevents it, but because it also offers alternatives that are so much easier or better that /they can't keep their players on the reservation/.

I don't have much sympathy for a DM that can't run his own table.

Doesn't that include the "Caller?" I've never seen anyone play with a caller - usually all I get if I mention the concept is blank looks. Or is it the Party A/B example? (Where everyone in party A's name started with A... easy to follow if nothing else.)

It's the example that's been retro named something like "The Monastery of the Order of Crimson Monks" or something of the sort. The one with the map.

Yes, it does have a caller, but if you look at the example of play Gygax only addresses the caller when the group is taking an action as whole (like do we go down this corridor and in what marching order). When individuals take individual actions, then Gygax doesn't insert the caller in between himself and the player, and instead goes through proposition->fortune->result loops directly with that player.

And this is genius, and I never understood how genius ("Why do we need a caller? I've never needed a caller!") this was until about 20 years later when I actually ran a group of 10-12 strangers. Suddenly you realize as a DM, "We need a caller." One of my biggest revelations about play in the last 20 years is that quantity has a quality all its own. I mean I always knew this in general, but I'd never really appreciated how it impacted game style and even game goals.

Celebrim · Jul 10, 2019

Quickleaf said:
Using your wits to avoid rolling dice, and solving situations through creative thinking. That's where the fun is. In OSR games, when you're confronted with a challenge, you don't look to your character sheet first; rather, you look to your own ingenuity first.

Picking on you here Quickleaf because I know you are good about it, but this is exactly the sort of statement that doesn't have perspective that I'm mocking in my conversation with Tony.

"You'll find its really different here from other places. People around here really like to eat food. We're different that way."

This is an attitude of play, and not something that has to do with rules.

I'm getting a chance to be a player for the first time in a while, and one of the other players is pretty new to gaming and really his whole experience of play to this point has been playing a Paladin. Now, for a change of pace, he's playing a Rogue. And this is something I'm continually coaching him on - when you play a rogue it's very important when you're confronted with a challenge to use your ingenuity and to treat your skills like saving throws when your ingenuity fails you. So, you check for traps using your ingenuity as a player, and then you fall back to checking for traps using your skills as a character.

And this is Pathfinder we are playing. But that's always how it has been since 1e AD&D.

It's not a rules thing. I mean maybe the OD&D players of the 'one true game' didn't have a thieves "saving throws" to fall back on but it's not like thief skills are a new concept.