What makes an Old School Renaissance FEEL like an OSR game?

[nnms]

I think presentation has a lot to do with it as well.

If you're sharing a PDF, laying it out like an old version of D&D and finding some black and white inked art you can use from relatively amateur artists is probably a good idea as well.

As for the ones under discussion, I'm still not sure I buy the whole "Game has the expectation that the rules do not (and are not trying) to cover all available actions/possibilities, and that player innovation and GM arbitration are not only inevitable, but presumed" thing. I maintain, for example, that Mentzer's version of Basic D&D does indeed have rules procedures for pretty much every part of play. It even has a form of a universal resolution mechanic in attribute checks. You don't really ever have to either set aside the rules or supplement them to cover new actions. It's already sort of there already. Like Apocalypse World, it already has all the "moves" that you might need right in the rules.

I've always seen "rulings not rules" as the tacit admission that the rules fail and need to be set aside or extended because the procedures of play aren't covering what's actually going on in play. It might be the case for 1974 D&D that you need to add rulings or set aside non-functioning rules subsystems, but I don't think that's the case for 1983 Basic D&D at all. And AD&D1E was all about standardization of the RPG market in a way that wasn't seen again until d20 came about.

So probably what you'll want to do is be like most 80s and 90s RPGs where they have rules for what actually goes on during the game and then have a "rule zero" section that talks about rulings and how everything is optional and that it's okay to make things up on the fly if you're not sure about a given situation or come across something not covered in the rules. And you'll also want to keep any extraneous rules out. If a given rule really isn't about what goes on in actual play, you can probably cut or minimize it.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=6696350]jacksonmalloy[/MENTION]

Shoot, if you like Apocalypse World, why not pick up a copy of Dungeon World (if you haven't) and run that for your group? It's super easy to pick up, and I think it may be my new favorite of the OSR games out there.

And the conversation has been very interesting, especially like your insights [MENTION=83293]nnms[/MENTION]! I agree that getting caught up in definitions of whatever that line is between Old School and New School gaming are not the way to go. The general principles you guys are discussing seem to be the better way to go.

However, I'm going to differ on one point about player skill / character skill balance...

Is there a balance here that can be struck between 'relying on the sheet' and being able to emulate abilities that the players themselves do not have?

I'm going to answer "yes, but..."

I think this absolutely is possible and IMO desirable. It's clear to me that as far as sheer number of players go OSR gamers are very outnumbered by New/d20 era gamers...maybe someone has numbers to dispute that? But that's the sense I get, so anytime I think of OSR I'm also thinking "and how can I trick more New School players into enjoying this as much as I do?"

But...I think it requires reexamining how a character's capabilities are approached. For example, skills run a gamut of "clearly character-based action skills" to more "nebulous character/player fusion skills." I tend to think of there bring four skill groupings a game designer should think about: Action Skills, Investigative Skills, Lore Skills, and Social Skills. IMO each needs a different approach in the game mechanics to achieve the balance of player skill vs. character skill.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Double-damage monster attacks in a world of single-digit PC hit points.

 

[nnms]

I think that we should also consider that newer games, despite having very clearly delineated character capabilities vs player capabilities, are still about player skill. I know, it sounds strange, but think about it in terms of what is left for a player to base choices on.

The players are sill making the decisions they need to in order to accomplish their goals. And given the situation in the game, they're still often attempting to make the best possible choices for the achievement of their goals. For example, just because I use a "search for traps" skill instead of describing the process of a character looking at every brick in the wall doesn't mean I'm not attempting to survive the dungeon and accomplish whatever it was i went into the dungeon for in the first place (get rich, get powerful, rescue someone, defeat a villian, who knows?).

I think the key is how it is applied. If I'm just rolling dice to make the issue go away then I'm not engaging with the described situation. If the described situation is that there's a door with some human bones scattered in front of it and I just go "detect traps, 32. And if I find some, disarm traps... 33" then I'm not really engaging with the described situation but trying to make the described situation simply go away.

So I think the real question is whether or not the resolution mechanics that represent a character's abilities are being used to actually engage in play or to avoid engaging with the situation.

 

[nnms]

Double-damage monster attacks in a world of single-digit PC hit points.

I know it's drifting away from dungeon fantasy that often defines old school gaming, but I would highly, highly recommend everyone play at least one scenario using Cthulhu Dark, a rules light system Graham Walmsley designed for testing Call/Trail of Cthulhu scenarios quickly and painlessly.

http://catchyourhare.com/files/Cthulhu Dark.pdf

From the text:

"If you fight any creature you meet, you will die. Thus, in these core rules, there are no combat rules or health levels. Instead, roll to hide or escape."

When you have a system this light and combat rules that basically amount to "all monsters kill you" you get into a very traditional OSR approach to the Cthulhu Mythos, despite this being a very, very modern game.

 

[Quickleaf]

So I think the real question is whether or not the resolution mechanics that represent a character's abilities are being used to actually engage in play or to avoid engaging with the situation.

Exactly, and well said.

My opinion is that not all character skills are created equal in this respect, as far as how they encourwge and/or require a player to engage.

Ever since 2e Player's Options books (and continuing in 3e and 4e) there's been a paradox in D&D: A player wants to describe their character using the rules, but in selecting skills like Diplomacy, Historical Lore, or Insight, a player who wants to engage in those areas of the game is basically investing in a skill to...avoid engaging what it is they're wanting to engage in!

I think any good DM can keep players engaged regardless of the system, mostly because a good DM knows that's what it's all about. However, the system can either help the DM do that or fight against the DM.

Take how knowledge skills are commonly used: "I rolled History 26. Ok, what do I know about Duke Dunderhead?"

Now the player - who I'm assuming selected History as a skill for character/story reasons - is waiting for the DM to feed some piece of information and there's not much engagement happening.

I'm curious to hear if you think this is even a problem, and if so how you've seen it addressed in other games in a way that you liked?

 

[nnms]

Ever since 2e Player's Options books (and continuing in 3e and 4e) there's been a paradox in D&D: A player wants to describe their character using the rules, but in selecting skills like Diplomacy, Historical Lore, or Insight, a player who wants to engage in those areas of the game is basically investing in a skill to...avoid engaging what it is they're wanting to engage in!

That's a good insight.

There's probably a technique that can be used to ensure these skill usages don't replace description and roleplay in favour of bypassing play.

One technique, which also fits the list of what is common among OSR feeling games, is that the referee is the one who calls for rolls. While Tunnels & Trolls did have players able to call for some rolls, largely even there those player called rolls were done in response to other rolls previously called for by the referee. Generally though, a roll is only valid or even relevant if it's called for by the GM. So a player can't just say "I convince him to join my side: Diplmoacy roll, 23" and bypass the conversation or dialogue.

I think any good DM can keep players engaged regardless of the system, mostly because a good DM knows that's what it's all about. However, the system can either help the DM do that or fight against the DM.

Perhaps I'm bitter and jaded, but I've noticed I've had much, much more success when I've stopped seeing it as my job to engage the players. I describe my heart out and do my best to only deal with things in normal language and not game terms. I think one of the advantage to the earlier games in RPG history is the ability to stick with normal language and have it make sense.

Perhaps that's another common element of the first games in RPGing history? That they are intimately connected with real language and not jargon or game terms. That you can describe what characters (be they PC or NPC) are doing without referring to rules terms unless you want to.

Take how knowledge skills are commonly used: "I rolled History 26. Ok, what do I know about Duke Dunderhead?"

Now the player - who I'm assuming selected History as a skill for character/story reasons - is waiting for the DM to feed some piece of information and there's not much engagement happening.

I'm curious to hear if you think this is even a problem, and if so how you've seen it addressed in other games in a way that you liked?

Part of the problem is that the setting authority traditionally lies with the GM, so what can the player do but roll when asked to and ask what they know? Unless they happen to really know the setting and can use that to supply their own answers, it's often inappropriate for the player, rather than the GM to supply answers to something like a setting history roll.

One way to approach this is to cut out the roll and just ask the GM to take the fact that your character is historically educated into consideration and just supply any info that the character would know. This should also be pointed out to be an opportunity for the GM to give information that the players should have. People often think they have to really hide clues and mysteries and information, but the truth is that you need to really shove it down player's throats in order for them to really get that it is important.

Another alternative is to demand note-taking. It's not old school pe se, but it is a practice that happened in the early days of RPGs. If something is going to be relevant from a historical or knowledge perspective, it gets mentioned in the description and the players can either not pay attention or they can jot notes and details down so they can use it later.

Perhaps a paragraph or section explicitly about note taking or providing useful details during exploration. For example, a bass-relief of a snake being killed by a jaguar might be useful to remember when it comes time to figuring out the traditional relations between Jaguar Clan and Snake Clan barbarians.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

OSR feel?

For me it simply comes down to this: the game plays faster. Everything else is group dynamics.

Too much focus on a character sheet? Yep, that happened in AD&D also.

Too much power-gaming? Yeah, that happened in AD&D also.

Lots of DM/player negotiation instead of simply dice-rolling? Sounds like most of the 3.xE and 4E games I've been a part of.

In short, old school and new school have a lot more in common than the edition warriors on both sides argue/pronounce. The fundamental difference is that old school plays faster.

 

[Yora]

If anything, old school is a style of running a game, regardless of the game rules.

But I think there's actually two rather different types of Old School style:
Old School Dungeon Crawling and open ended, narrative roleplaying.

And Old School dungeon crawl actually seems even less entertaining than WotC/Paizo dungeon crawling to me. Supposedly, Keep on the Borderland is the greatest old school module ever made, and there's nothing but a single cave dungeon full of monsters to kill and take their loot. No backstory or reason whatsoever.

 

[dd.stevenson]

If someone advertises for players in their "old-school style" campaign, prospective players can reasonably expect the game to prioritize player immersion by greater reliance on player skill, fast play, and DM rulings.

That's what I consider the received wisdom about old school play. Is this true to the spirit of pre-2000 rpgs? Yeah, I think so, mostly--but it's important to keep in mind that that was a big era, and it's not like there was just one monolithic play style then, either.