BrOSR

[Mannahnin]

Different strokes for different folks... i don't see this enough in OSR culture for it to become my main gripe... especially compared to the issues of racism, homophobia, transphobia and mysogny along with the willingness of the bigger names in the community to accept it by trying to stay neutral.

Yeah, this is a tough one. There are at least two or three big and otherwise well-respected creators who aren't usually LOUD about it, but who turned out to be proudly transphobic or otherwise bigoted reactionaries. And while there are certainly sub-sets of the scene which are proudly and loudly inclusive, some prominent voices like Ben seem to just prefer to stay out of that dispute entirely. A policy we all know how Desmond Tutu aptly criticized.

 

[PHATsakk43]

3E, for the record. When I first got into it 4E was new, but the scene had been around for several years. Dragonsfoot.org forum custom was to refer to 3E and 3.5 as TETSNBN (The Edition That Shall Not Be Named) and then 4E subsequently as YAETSNBN.

We know the scene first started getting talked about as a movement around 2004.

I'm 46 and started playing in 1990 and quit in late 1999 when I joined the US Navy. I made a lot of game product purchases during the 3E era, but only actually played once and that was circa 2011 or so and that session never made it out of the tavern we were all supposed to be meeting in. Also being deployed for the majority of the 2000s meant that I really didn't get into the TTRPG forums until sometime after 2012 or so when I started posting on Candlekeep, as I was and am a big FR nerd. Dragonsfoot was another thing I had no knowledge of until I became active on r/adnd around 2018 or so where I heard about THAC0s Hammer podcast. The only reason I even got that involved was that I had started DMing again with a group of much younger people in a 5E game that had lost their DM and I was selected as I had been a DM before. So, I guess there was a stalwart group that never left the old TSR era rules, but it seems like the "movement" part of OSR really established itself with the release of 4E, and oddly the way that Pathfinder became a physical embodiment of the rejection of that edition.

To move from a broader discussion of the OSR and back to BrOSR, I'd like to make sort of a The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly take on it from what I can see. First, I'll try to narrow the definition of BrOSR as to being the Jeffro definition and the Brozer rules, which seems to be the current state of BrOSR.


The Good: It does seem that when you take the gameplay elements that Jeffro discusses, specifically the idea that D&D is fundamentally not an RPG in the current context, nor that it ever was supposed to be, but instead that it has to be viewed in the context of a Braunstein style game and a more or less a method to develop the backstory for a larger wargaming campaign. In this perspective, a lot of stuff does seem like it starts to make more sense, particularly the "domain" level play aspects that were included in both versions of the AD&D game but never really properly addressed as to how these elements were to be employed in the game. There is actually a lot to this, but I don't want to make a wall of text and I think this is a sufficient starting point for discussion.

The Bad: Given what relatively good linkages that Jeffro's observations seem to imply, it still feels like this may just be rather hypothetical. Or just seeing patterns in tea leaves that may or may not have any causality between the two aspects. It seems odd that if Braunstein play was the intended methodology, no one utilized much past the initial stuff from the Milwaukee group with Wesley and then Arneson. So, I'm leery of giving too much value to this theory solely based upon a myth of a "lost history" which is why games suck now and used to be so much better. And our games today would be so much better if only we knew how to play right.

The Ugly: This is the subjective part where you have to separate the art from the artist if you want to delve into the stuff that Jeffro has done. I'm going to refrain from specifics as I've already been chastised once.

 

[Mannahnin]

I'm 46 and started playing in 1990 and quit in late 1999 when I joined the US Navy. I made a lot of game product purchases during the 3E era, but only actually played once and that was circa 2011 or so and that session never made it out of the tavern we were all supposed to be meeting in. Also being deployed for the majority of the 2000s meant that I really didn't get into the TTRPG forums until sometime after 2012 or so when I started posting on Candlekeep, as I was and am a big FR nerd. Dragonsfoot was another thing I had no knowledge of until I became active on r/adnd around 2018 or so where I heard about THAC0s Hammer podcast. The only reason I even got that involved was that I had started DMing again with a group of much younger people in a 5E game that had lost their DM and I was selected as I had been a DM before. So, I guess there was a stalwart group that never left the old TSR era rules, but it seems like the "movement" part of OSR really established itself with the release of 4E, and oddly the way that Pathfinder became a physical embodiment of the rejection of that edition.

I'm a few years older. Started with BECMI then rapidly jumped to AD&D, played AD&D a lot in the early to mid 90s. I had a break from it when I got into LARPing and then wargaming, probably '97ish to around 2002. Then got back in with 3E when some of my (5-odd years older) wargaming buddies decided to get back into D&D, which they had mostly been away from longer. We played the hell out of 3rd, 3.5, and 4E.

4E was new when I met Frank Mentzer at a convention and he introduced me to the OSR. I then dove headfirst into reading several years of older posts on forums and then-super active blogs digging into the history of the game and all the new stuff people were producing. Grognardia didn't start until around six months before 4E was released, for example (and Dave Bowman's wonderful blog just before that), but Delta's blog dates to a full year before Maliziewski's, and the forums (Dragonsfoot, Knights & Knaves Alehouse, and Original D&D Discussion in particular) had been going full tilt for a few years before those, putting out new modules and play resources since at least 2004. And of course the OSR produced the first retroclones (BFRPG and OSRIC) in 2006.

I can see how 4E could look like the start point if you were just looking at the later blog explosion or the Google+ phase.

No doubt the release of 4E triggered another wave of growth for the OSR, as some players jumping ship went to the new Pathfinder, and others went backwards and found the OSR.

The Good: It does seem that when you take the gameplay elements that Jeffro discusses, specifically the idea that D&D is fundamentally not an RPG in the current context, nor that it ever was supposed to be, but instead that it has to be viewed in the context of a Braunstein style game and a more or less a method to develop the backstory for a larger wargaming campaign. In this perspective, a lot of stuff does seem like it starts to make more sense, particularly the "domain" level play aspects that were included in both versions of the AD&D game but never really properly addressed as to how these elements were to be employed in the game. There is actually a lot to this, but I don't want to make a wall of text and I think this is a sufficient starting point for discussion.

The Bad: Given what relatively good linkages that Jeffro's observations seem to imply, it still feels like this may just be rather hypothetical. Or just seeing patterns in tea leaves that may or may not have any causality between the two aspects. It seems odd that if Braunstein play was the intended methodology, no one utilized much past the initial stuff from the Milwaukee group with Wesley and then Arneson. So, I'm leery of giving too much value to this theory solely based upon a myth of a "lost history" which is why games suck now and used to be so much better. And our games today would be so much better if only we knew how to play right.

Right. I think his perspective is A way to play, but he's simply wrong that it is or was THE way to play. Dave Wesely certainly considers the Braunsteins to be roleplaying games. He originally intended the first one to set up a wargame scenario, but after seeing how people played it and enjoyed it, realized that didn't have to be the point, and ran the subsequent ones such that the focus was and stayed on the individual characters. No wargame component needed.

It does seem clear that Dave meant for Blackmoor to focus as much on domain and wargame play as individual character play, but it's also evident from reports of play that his players mostly were excited about the dungeon exploring and tended to neglect the larger wargame elements. Hence Blackmoor town getting overrun by the baddies and the good guys having to flee to Loch Gloomin.

And as you say, if AD&D had really been intended to focus on wargame/domain level play, why aren't there more instructions for how to run that kind of game? Or any classic modules focusing on it?

 

[PHATsakk43]

And as you say, if AD&D had really been intended to focus on wargame/domain level play, why aren't there more instructions for how to run that kind of game? Or any classic modules focusing on it?

Which is a great point. There was an attempt in the late 1E and early 2E period to go this route with Battlesystem. The classic H-series was integrated with the two games. Dark Sun likewise was envisioned originally as “War World” with early products having significant 2E Battlesystem features.

I think this failed because it wasn’t what the community wanted, even if it seems that TSR seemed to do just as much to make the integration nearly impossible with its various mismanaged things like miniatures or any other support.

I think with low-cost 3-D printing and whatnot some of the logistical challenges could be overcome today, but I’m not sure that this is really any more widely popular today than 35 years ago.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The question would be, basically, how much the fantasy miniature wargaming fandom and the fantasy roleplaying fandom overlaps, and even when it does how many of them really want their chocolate with their peanut butter.

 

[PHATsakk43]

The question would be, basically, how much the fantasy miniature wargaming fandom and the fantasy roleplaying fandom overlaps, and even when it does how many of them really want their chocolate with their peanut butter.

I find the ideas fascinating, but also find the realities of getting several others to also share in that opinion as well the logistics of actually having the minis to manage it daunting.

Supposedly “Braunstein” style play and 1:1 time keeping alleviates all this and it all just works, mostly because the DM is removed from planning and all the “content” is effectively player generated.

Again, I’d really appreciate taking part in one of these to see it, but I can barely get people to play a 2E game much less something this experimental.

 

[Mannahnin]

Which is a great point. There was an attempt in the late 1E and early 2E period to go this route with Battlesystem. The classic H-series was integrated with the two games. Dark Sun likewise was envisioned originally as “War World” with early products having significant 2E Battlesystem features.

There was also the whole Birthright campaign setting which was designed to center on rulership and domain play even from low levels, but was never popular at all. I loved the aesthetics and the details it gave of the campaign world, but it seems like the audience was never there for this style of campaign.

I think this failed because it wasn’t what the community wanted, even if it seems that TSR seemed to do just as much to make the integration nearly impossible with its various mismanaged things like miniatures or any other support.

The question would be, basically, how much the fantasy miniature wargaming fandom and the fantasy roleplaying fandom overlaps, and even when it does how many of them really want their chocolate with their peanut butter.

Indeed. From my experience, individual character roleplaying and campaign wargaming are two separate hobbies, and the former has a lot more fans than the latter. One of my groups, the guys I started playing with around 2002, are both, but even that group doesn't combine the two the way Arneson originally intended, or Johnson advocates.

TSR kept the high level domain play in the AD&D (1E and 2E) rules, and in BECMI starting in the Companion set. (It's barely present at all in 1981 B/X; in the Expert set only the Cleric (edit: and Thief) has details on followers attracted at high level, and castle building is a single page).

They did publish a (rare) one or two modules for this style of play- primarily CM1 Test of the Warlords, to my recollection. But it always seemed vestigial. Even Gary's players didn't seem to go in much for it. We hear about Rob Kuntz' Robilar having a castle and two(?) green dragon mount(s?) and an army of orcs, but nothing about Gary's players doing faction play against one another and ruling competing territories.

Which is a great point. There was an attempt in the late 1E and early 2E period to go this route with Battlesystem. The classic H-series was integrated with the two games. Dark Sun likewise was envisioned originally as “War World” with early products having significant 2E Battlesystem features.

I think this failed because it wasn’t what the community wanted, even if it seems that TSR seemed to do just as much to make the integration nearly impossible with its various mismanaged things like miniatures or any other support.

I think with low-cost 3-D printing and whatnot some of the logistical challenges could be overcome today, but I’m not sure that this is really any more widely popular today than 35 years ago.

Yeah, there was some combination of lack of player interest and managerial incompetence on the miniatures side.

From what I remember in When We Were Wizards (and maybe a bit from Game Wizards and Slaying the Dragon; memories are blurring), one of their big expensive executive hires who turned out to be a huge financial liability (including a contract buyout and probably extra for signing an NDA) was Duke Seyfried, who they brought on specifically as a miniatures expert, to expand their miniatures and toy production. He lasted only a little over a year before being a part of a big wave of restructuring layoffs in 1983.

I find the ideas fascinating, but also find the realities of getting several others to also share in that opinion as well the logistics of actually having the minis to manage it daunting.

Supposedly “Braunstein” style play and 1:1 time keeping alleviates all this and it all just works, mostly because the DM is removed from planning and all the “content” is effectively player generated.

Again, I’d really appreciate taking part in one of these to see it, but I can barely get people to play a 2E game much less something this experimental.

Yeah, in my years of fantasy wargaming I saw several attempts by various folks to run ongoing wargame campaigns with tracked losses and gains, continuity and a map of controlled territories. And in my experience while there was often enough of a pool of players to START such a campaign, they often fizzled out due to the reinforcing feedback loops of winning and losing.

Folks who win a couple of battles have more troops surviving, and acquire more territory to be able to support and raise larger armies. Folks who lose a couple of battles rapidly have their forces and territories dwindle, and so they start to get into a death spiral. And so forth. So you might plan a campaign to go several months or a year, but it winds up sputtering out after a few weeks or a month or two.

 

[Mannahnin]

Along the lines of Braunsteins, though, back in the 90s I did used to LARP. And one of the distinguishing features of LARP games was usually that there was a huge number of players to a small fraction of that number of staff/referees and NPCs. Say, 20-50 players for a Vampire: The Masquerade parlor-style game played on a college campus in an ongoing campaign or in a hotel for a weekend, along with 3-5 referees and full-time NPCs, so the players get divided into factions and are primarily each other's antagonists. Or 50-200 players for a fantasy boffer LARP at a Boy Scout camp in the woods played in an ongoing campaign (sometimes for years) held once a month during all the warm months, with 5-10 referees/"plot marshals" and another 20-40 NPC volunteers to play monsters.

When you have those sorts of games, the referees/game masters can write overarching plots, and have antagonist and patron NPCs, but a lot of the players have to entertain themselves and each other for a ton of the game time. There just aren't enough GMs and NPC staff to entertain you all the time. As a player you try to join an adventuring group or faction, and get hooked into whatever plot's going on and get to RP with NPCs and hopefully go on some kind of quests/adventures within the framework of the larger session, but a lot of the time you need to RP with fellow players, create your own internecine rivalries and dynamics, and play outside of scenarios the GMs have come up with.

It was also common at some of the fantasy LARPs for experienced "teams" of players to take the occasional event off PCing, to volunteer and NPC, so the ranks of the NPCs would be bolstered by a bunch of experienced players (often the bulk of the NPCs were younger or less experienced players learning the ropes and getting to play for free by playing the baddies). For folks who played a lot, it would often be a recruitment deal that organizers of separate fantasy LARPS (or campaigns using the same system, running on different weekends) would recruit experienced players and offer trade deals where you'd get compensated partially in XP for your PC while NPCing another game).

Anyway, all this is to say that I HAVE seen something like what you're saying Jeffro is pitching, but more in the LARP realm than in the wargaming realm.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Along the lines of Braunsteins, though, back in the 90s I did used to LARP. And one of the distinguishing features of LARP games was usually that there was a huge number of players to a small fraction of that number of staff/referees and NPCs. Say, 20-50 players for a Vampire: The Masquerade parlor-style game played on a college campus in an ongoing campaign or in a hotel for a weekend, along with 3-5 referees and full-time NPCs, so the players get divided into factions and are primarily each other's antagonists. Or 50-200 players for a fantasy boffer LARP at a Boy Scout camp in the woods played in an ongoing campaign (sometimes for years) held once a month during all the warm months, with 5-10 referees/"plot marshals" and another 20-40 NPC volunteers to play monsters.

This is very much the way it tended to work in MUSHes, too.

When you have those sorts of games, the referees/game masters can write overarching plots, and have antagonist and patron NPCs, but a lot of the players have to entertain themselves and each other for a ton of the game time. There just aren't enough GMs and NPC staff to entertain you all the time. As a player you try to join an adventuring group or faction, and get hooked into whatever plot's going on and get to RP with NPCs and hopefully go on some kind of quests/adventures within the framework of the larger session, but a lot of the time you need to RP with fellow players, create your own internecine rivalries and dynamics, and play outside of scenarios the GMs have come up with.

And this.

 

[PHATsakk43]

From what I remember in When We Were Wizards (and maybe a bit from Game Wizards and Slaying the Dragon; memories are blurring), one of their big expensive executive hires who turned out to be a huge financial liability (including a contract buyout and probably extra for signing an NDA) was Duke Seyfried, who they brought on specifically as a miniatures expert, to expand their miniatures and toy production. He lasted only a little over a year before being a part of a big wave of restructuring layoffs in 1983.

It also corresponded with the planned release of the 1E Battlesystem boxed set IIRC. At the time, I think Ral Partha was the licensed producer and could have actually supported the release making both companies money, but the decision to bring it in-house was utterly flawed and reminiscent of the previous dice production scheme the Blumes had cooked up. It also apparently created tension with Ral Partha.

Either way, the boxed set was apparently very expensive and the largest boxed set that TSR released up until that point. It portended the latter production cost being higher than retail price much less wholesale that ultimately doomed the company in the 90s.