OSR Is there room in modern gaming for the OSR to bring in new gamers?

[Micah Sweet]

Which is exactly why I wont play games like Pendragon or historic simulation RPGS (any westerns or games that take place prior to the 1970's). CALL OF CTHULHU was a no go for me for decades until HARLEM UNBOUND. YOU don't see the desire of playing ones self (some variation thereof) in an RPG but I DO. Especially when "oneself" is definitely NOT the default for a heroic character in the culture. Popular or otherwise.

When the default in popular media and TTRPG's for DECADES have been white males as the prominent heroes? If I want to play someone who looks like me in a fantasy TTRPG? That's what I want to do. I play this game for fun and THAT'S part of my fun. And any game that doesn't facilitate that? isn't a game that I'm going to support with my dollars much less play. People that complain about me wanting to play in a game or world that has people who look like me in it? I have no use for them either. The fact that Seela (the aforementioned black Paladin) exists and is so prominent in a mainstream game like PATHFINDER is STILL the exception and not the rule and to mark the reason for her existence as gamist or appealing to a "power fantasy approach" minimizes/ignores the idea that maybe...just maybe, the developers of said game said to themselves that "Hey maybe we want to show that this game isn't JUST for white or white-facing people? That ANYONE can be heroic?" Not just people who "existed" in arthurian "legend". I'm just sayin'...

But there's room for both styles of RPG, right? You can have games where the diversity is built into the world, and anybody can be anything. And you can also have focused games, like Pendragon, where the story you're telling is specific to a region or a time period. You don't have to like both kinds of games, you don't have to financially support both kinds of games, but you should respect that there are people who do enjoy one or the other (or both) and allow them to do so.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think the distinction is with “modern” D&D (i.e., trad and OC/neo-trad play) where there is a very large focus on playing through and experiencing a story, especially the realization of character arcs that were seeded during character creation in the case of OC/neo-trad.

It’s a style of play where killing characters is bad because it ruins the (or their) story. The GM may fudge rolls to make sure that narratively important fights carry suitable weight (killing the evil high priest in one round is “boring”). Collaboratively telling a story is more important than OSR-style “skilled play”. In fact, “skilled play” can be disruptive (which I say from experience). While OSR favors “combat as war”, this style is more “combat as sport”.

However, I haven’t seen the term used before, but I was thinking this afternoon. It seems like “combat as performance” may be more accurate. While fights may be meant to be challenging, I don’t think that’s the point. The characters are expected to win (unless the story needs otherwise), so the the challenge is artificial (or performative). The important thing is that fights respect their role in the story, which is why the GM needs to fudge to make sure a climatic encounter is suitably epic. I want to call it “combat as performance” because it brings to mind sports entertainment like professional wrestling.

While I agree that "combat as performance" exists, I don't think it can be equated to "combat as sport".

Combat as sport is about symmetry. Two teams square off on relatively fair terms and only one of them can win. That doesn't mean that your team will win. Obviously, a better team will typically win, and this will often be the players, but that's not necessarily the case. You can lose/die/TPK in CaS. However, poisoning the other team's Gatorade or holding their mascot for ransom would be out of the question (those are asymmetrical CaW strategies, which would be considered unfair in a pure CaS game).

Whereas in CaP, you arguably can't lose unless it's appropriate to the narrative. There are various ways of accomplishing this such as death flags, etc. Even Worlds Without Number, which considers itself an OSR game, spends a few paragraphs on how to implement such an approach, if desired.

I think you've actually hit upon something fairly relevant. From what I've seen, people sometimes conflate CaS with CaP, and CaS folks can get pretty irritated when folks throw around adages like "no challenge" with respect to CaS. That's because those folks are thinking of CaP, not CaS.

 

[Micah Sweet]

While I agree that "combat as performance" exists, I don't think it can be equated to "combat as sport".

Combat as sport is about symmetry. Two teams square off on relatively fair terms and only one of them can win. That doesn't mean that your team will win. Obviously, a better team will typically win, and this will often be the players, but that's not necessarily the case. You can lose/die/TPK in CaS. However, poisoning the other team's Gatorade or holding their mascot for ransom would be out of the question (those are asymmetrical CaW strategies, which would be considered unfair in a pure CaS game).

Whereas in CaP, you arguably can't lose unless it's appropriate to the narrative. There are various ways of accomplishing this such as death flags, etc. Even Worlds Without Number, which considers itself an OSR game, spends a few paragraphs on how to implement such an approach, if desired.

I think you've actually landed on something fairly relevant. From what I've seen, people sometimes conflate CaS with CaP, and CaS folks can get pretty irritated when folks throw around adages like "no challenge" with respect to CaS. That's because those folks are thinking of CaP, not CaS.

I think that's technically correct, but misleading. Typically, the scales are weighed so heavily in the player's favor that the outcome is practically not in doubt. And when things do go wrong for the PCS, I've regularly seen GMs bend over backwards to make reality mirror what the players want. In a lot of ways, its putting on a show, where everyone knows how its supposed to end.

 

[kenada]

While I agree that "combat as performance" exists, I don't think it can be equated to "combat as sport".

Combat as sport is about symmetry. Two teams square off on relatively fair terms and only one of them can win. That doesn't mean that your team will win. Obviously, a better team will typically win, and this will often be the players, but that's not necessarily the case. You can lose/die/TPK in CaS. However, poisoning the other team's Gatorade or holding their mascot for ransom would be out of the question (those are asymmetrical CaW strategies, which would be considered unfair in a pure CaS game).

Whereas in CaP, you arguably can't lose unless it's appropriate to the narrative. There are various ways of accomplishing this such as death flags, etc. Even Worlds Without Number, which considers itself an OSR game, spends a few paragraphs on how to implement such an approach, if desired.

I think you've actually hit upon something fairly relevant. From what I've seen, people sometimes conflate CaS with CaP, and CaS folks can get pretty irritated when folks throw around adages like "no challenge" with respect to CaS. That's because those folks are thinking of CaP, not CaS.

Yep, and I agree about equating the two. It’s called “combat as sport”, but it’s not much of a sport if the outcome is effectively preordained. That’s why I suggested “combat as performance” as a better name (to distinguish it from actual combat as sport). I tried to do some Googling to see if there were any existing discourse to that effect, but I mostly just found discussions of e.g., gladiatorial combat.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think that's technically correct, but misleading. Typically, the scales are weighed so heavily in the player's favor that the outcome is practically not in doubt. And when things do go wrong for the PCS, I've regularly seen GMs bend over backwards to make reality mirror what the players want. In a lot of ways, its putting on a show, where everyone knows how its supposed to end.

That might be your experience, but it isn't mine. I would describe my group's playstyle as mainly CaS with a bit of CaW added for spice. In most of our campaigns we have character deaths. Sometimes even TPKs. Frequently, these are not at any kind of narrative high point. Like the time my paladin got eaten by gnolls buying the ranger's bear time to escape (that was stupid of me, but we all loved that bear). Or the time my wizard was killed by his own earth elemental when it critically fumbled an attack roll (that one really hurt).

Could it be that the games you've experienced that you thought were CaS were actually CaP?

 

[Mannahnin]

Concur. In practice what's labeled "Combat as Sport" has the odds stacked substantially in favor of the PCs on average.

And that's an expected and desirable goal, of course. If in every fight the odds were actually even, the party would have a 25% chance of surviving their first two fights! So if we expect a combat-filled game with lots of fun fight scenes in the vein of an action movie, we HAVE to stack the odds in favor of the PCs.

Now, there are varying levels of difficulty different DMs apply, and player skill factors in too. Better players will tend to conserve more resources for an emergency, utilize Action Economy to win fights efficiently, etc. Even if the outcome of a given fight was never REALLY in doubt, it can feel harder than it was to the players (I've seen this a lot in my time DMing), and even having one or two PCs dropped can make it feel like it was a close fight subjectively.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Concur. In practice what's labeled "Combat as Sport" has the odds stacked substantially in favor of the PCs on average.

And that's an expected and desirable goal, of course. If in every fight the odds were actually even, the party would have a 25% chance of surviving their first two fights! So if we expect a combat-filled game with lots of fun fight scenes in the vein of an action movie, we HAVE to stack the odds in favor of the PCs.

Now, there are varying levels of difficulty different DMs apply, and player skill factors in too. Better players will tend to conserve more resources for an emergency, utilize Action Economy to win fights efficiently, etc.

That is generally true, but it isn't a necessary component of CaS. My group prefers hard fights, so we tend to make encounters substantially harder than what the DMG recommends.

IMO, it's easy for an inexperienced DM to ratchet up the difficulty if it's too low. It's much harder to ratchet down the difficulty if it's too high (unless the group wants to suffer through multiple TPKs until they find their "sweet spot").

 

[Mannahnin]

That is generally true, but it isn't a necessary component of CaS. My group prefers hard fights, so we tend to make encounters substantially harder than what the DMG recommends.

IMO, it's easy for an inexperienced DM to ratchet up the difficulty if it's too low. It's much harder to ratchet down the difficulty if it's too high (unless the group wants to suffer through multiple TPKs until they find their "sweet spot").

I agree with all that. But there's no way that the odds at the start of MOST fights are actually even. Or you'd have a whole lot of TPKs, and it would be mathematically impossible to get out of low levels.

I have a good amount of miniatures wargaming background, which helps make tactical combat in D&D one of my strong suits as a DM, and I love making fights look even or close to even for the players. But it can really only be at points in the game where I'm not worried about a TPK that I can try to really aim for even odds.

 

[Democratus]

Concur. In practice what's labeled "Combat as Sport" has the odds stacked substantially in favor of the PCs on average.

And that's an expected and desirable goal, of course. If in every fight the odds were actually even, the party would have a 25% chance of surviving their first two fights! So if we expect a combat-filled game with lots of fun fight scenes in the vein of an action movie, we HAVE to stack the odds in favor of the PCs.

They would have a 25% chance of winning their first two fights. Losing and surviving are two entirely different things. Especially when you are playing Combat as Sport. CaS will commonly have a lost fight turn into a capture, a flight, or the enemy simply walking away after proving their superiority.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I agree with all that. But there's no way that the odds at the start of MOST fights are actually even. Or you'd have a whole lot of TPKs, and it would be mathematically impossible to get out of low levels.

I have a good amount of miniatures wargaming background, which helps make tactical combat in D&D one of my strong suits as a DM, and I love making fights look even or close to even for the players. But it can really only be at points in the game where I'm not worried about a TPK that I can try to really aim for even odds.

I agree that not every fight is 50/50. Even in CaW, that shouldn't be a given (sometimes you encounter a lone goblin).

That said, I don't really worry about TPKing my players. That's for them to worry about. If they TPK we can create a new party or even a new campaign.

I believe that I often assemble encounters that, in the absence of good tactics, would be 50/50 or worse odds. But with good tactics, they can swing the odds in their favor, which is what they do (not entirely unlike a CaW group, just applied symmetrically).