BrOSR

[Mannahnin]

I would think the very heart of OSR is:
1. A continuing story from week to week. I mean the bottomless dungeon you keep returning to is classic OSR. (Not my cup every time mind you but it is a classic trope)
2. The DM is final arbiter
3. Let the dice fall where they fall
4. The game is hard, prep and skill required.

This is a radical departure but it is in no way in the old school direction.

I think we're misunderstanding/talking past each other a bit. What are you saying is a radical departure from what? Could you explain?

I read the key words in Mollison's sentences "Stop thinking of RPGs as a storytelling process. Stop thinking of each session of play as a single episode in a larger story" as being "storytelling", and "story".

This reads to me as a reaction against narrative-focused play, designed to create an epic story. ie: "Trad" (thinking of the Six Cultures of Play post here, for definitions of play styles). Or against "Modern" play as exemplified by, say, Critical Role, which to my understanding or as popularly perceived similarly often has big pre-planned plot arcs. When I was playing in the 90s, especially, and to some extent in the 2000s, this was the dominant mode. DMs conceiving a grand overarching story and the players playing through that, with greater or lesser amounts of railroading for the players or freedom and rolling with it by the DM.

OSR or Classic play, especially stuff using an episodic, open-table format like West Marches, is NOT designed to create a big epic storyline, but instead to focus on the game and for any stories to be emergent, to be constructed in the discussions of the players AFTER the fact, not planned out in advance by the GM as in Trad play. I don't think returning to the dungeon week after week is a story. The players can make a story of it, especially if they wind up with ongoing rivals or enemy factions. Do you see the distinction I'm drawing?

So when I see Mollison explicating the BrOSR style and saying that it "reinvigorated the ossified field of tabletop RPGs by incorporating the solid design principles laid down by the giants of the pre-1980s collapse", that reads to me as redundant and seemingly ignorant of the prior 15-20 years of OSR discussion and design. And of the Storygames movement, for that matter, given his describing the idea of an RPG where the GM does not have absolute veto power as if it were novel!

That's not to say that nothing the BrOSR is doing is novel.

 

[Arilyn]

I was a girl playing rpgs, (now sadly an old lady, but still playing!) Never was it an excuse to find dates, like what a weird take.

And I was playing the 1st addition Warhammer RPG, not that sissy D&D game.

 

[Zeromaru X]

I didn't even knew this term existed, but I've met people like that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This sounds like pretty much the poster-children for what I'm talking about when I refer to the malignant end of the OS approach.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This sounds like pretty much the poster-children for what I'm talking about when I refer to the malignant end of the OS approach.

Not that it's really important, but I'd be curious how prevalent it is. I'm strongly drawn to games that remind me of playing D&D in middle school 40+ years ago, but I roll my eyes at gatekeeping by aging white nerds (even though I'm an aging white nerd myself).

Personally I think the HUGE influx of non-white, non-straight, non-male gamers has been absolutely amazing for the hobby. I don't have to buy games and supplements that emphasize the aspects I don't personally relate to, but all those potential customers have meant a vibrant industry, with a much needed clean-up of some of it's more cringe-worthy tendencies.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not that it's really important, but I'd be curious how prevalent it is. I'm strongly drawn to games that remind me of playing D&D in middle school 40+ years ago, but I roll my eyes at gatekeeping by aging white nerds (even though I'm an aging white nerd myself).

It may or may not be prevalent, but those kind of people seem to show up in any place that leans into old school standards, and they're extremely--visible. Its difficult to separate frequency from volume, however.

Personally I think the HUGE influx of non-white, non-straight, non-male gamers has been absolutely amazing for the hobby. I don't have to buy games and supplements that emphasize the aspects I don't personally relate to, but all those potential customers have meant a vibrant industry, with a much needed clean-up of some of it's more cringe-worthy tendencies.

Yup.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Personally I think the HUGE influx of non-white, non-straight, non-male gamers has been absolutely amazing for the hobby. I don't have to buy games and supplements that emphasize the aspects I don't personally relate to, but all those potential customers have meant a vibrant industry, with a much needed clean-up of some of it's more cringe-worthy tendencies.

It also means new perspectives and new stories, just as it's meant elsewhere in entertainment. It's been a great trend in recent years and I hope it keeps accelerating.

 

[Jolly Ruby]

I'm a bit bummed it isn't Brazilian OSR anymore. The LATAM TTRPG scene is really cool and avantgarde.

 

[Emerikol]

I think we're misunderstanding/talking past each other a bit. What are you saying is a radical departure from what? Could you explain?

I read the key words in Mollison's sentences "Stop thinking of RPGs as a storytelling process. Stop thinking of each session of play as a single episode in a larger story" as being "storytelling", and "story".

This reads to me as a reaction against narrative-focused play, designed to create an epic story. ie: "Trad" (thinking of the Six Cultures of Play post here, for definitions of play styles). Or against "Modern" play as exemplified by, say, Critical Role, which to my understanding or as popularly perceived similarly often has big pre-planned plot arcs. When I was playing in the 90s, especially, and to some extent in the 2000s, this was the dominant mode. DMs conceiving a grand overarching story and the players playing through that, with greater or lesser amounts of railroading for the players or freedom and rolling with it by the DM.

If that was the intent of the author I think they were not specific enough. My first thought on reading it was -- is he suggesting narrative play is OSR? I got past that but all the stuff he is talking about isn't OSR. It may be anti-Narrative who knows.

OSR or Classic play, especially stuff using an episodic, open-table format like West Marches, is NOT designed to create a big epic storyline, but instead to focus on the game and for any stories to be emergent, to be constructed in the discussions of the players AFTER the fact, not planned out in advance by the GM as in Trad play. I don't think returning to the dungeon week after week is a story. The players can make a story of it, especially if they wind up with ongoing rivals or enemy factions. Do you see the distinction I'm drawing?

For me, those "emergent" stories are the very best and most satisfying. See in my campaign there were all sorts of bad guys up to all sorts of bad things. The path the PCs cut in that world was there story but it was an epic one. But yes, the outcome wasn't planned out in advance. The villains though exist in the world and they have plans. The PCs can stop them or not. Usually, they stop at least some of them.

I see the distinction but I think the terms are misleading. OSR people rail against the idea it's a board game. We are very much about character development. We just see the adventures as challenges for BOTH the players and the characters.

So when I see Mollison explicating the BrOSR style and saying that it "reinvigorated the ossified field of tabletop RPGs by incorporating the solid design principles laid down by the giants of the pre-1980s collapse", that reads to me as redundant and seemingly ignorant of the prior 15-20 years of OSR discussion and design. And of the Storygames movement, for that matter, given his describing the idea of an RPG where the GM does not have absolute veto power as if it were novel!

That's not to say that nothing the BrOSR is doing is novel.

Well, he is insulting. I'm saying even if you agreed with his take about the 1970's being the best time, his proposed style of game isn't a match. It's radically out of touch with that style of play. Anyway, good discussion.

 

[Mannahnin]

If that was the intent of the author I think they were not specific enough. My first thought on reading it was -- is he suggesting narrative play is OSR? I got past that but all the stuff he is talking about isn't OSR. It may be anti-Narrative who knows.

I don't think he's suggesting that narrative play is OSR. It reads to me like he's talking as if OSR isn't even a thing he's aware of! Or as if he completely missed the prevalence of Emergent Narrative over pre-planned narrative in that space. It wouldn't entirely shock me if some of Jeffro's crew came into AD&D from 3e or 5e or otherwise completely outside the OSR.

For me, those "emergent" stories are the very best and most satisfying. See in my campaign there were all sorts of bad guys up to all sorts of bad things. The path the PCs cut in that world was there story but it was an epic one. But yes, the outcome wasn't planned out in advance. The villains though exist in the world and they have plans. The PCs can stop them or not. Usually, they stop at least some of them.

Likewise. I think that's some of the most fun kind of gameplay. And it can often draw from newer game elements too- for example Clocks, or Fronts, or the Hill Cantons Chaos Index, as concepts, really support sandbox style play.

I see the distinction but I think the terms are misleading. OSR people rail against the idea it's a board game. We are very much about character development. We just see the adventures as challenges for BOTH the players and the characters.

Speaking as an "OSR people", I haven't seen a ton of that railing. Though I certainly do see folks defend a more gamist approach as still being very much Roleplaying. And yes, challenging both the players and their characters is standard.

Well, he is insulting. I'm saying even if you agreed with his take about the 1970's being the best time, his proposed style of game isn't a match. It's radically out of touch with that style of play. Anyway, good discussion.

Good discussion indeed. I'm not 100% sure I agree that they're "radically" out of touch with 70s play. Some of what they're talking about doing does seem reminiscent of how Blackmoor seems to have worked, and how D&D was theoretically supposed to work after PCs reached Name level and established fiefs and baronies. One thing I always bear in mind is that there were always multiple different styles of play. At LEAST from the moment Gary made his own campaign separate from Dave's, although I expect that other referees who started even before Gary (like Greg Svenson) also diverged from Dave's style of game at least a bit.