OSR Errant

[zakael19]

I played Errant at a con last spring, and my recollection is that, of all the systems and subsystems, the only one that was a real bear in play was the inventory/encumbrance system -- it was a monster to track in real time and not a ton of fun. The GM did say that in terms of prep, he found that creating spellcasters and their grimoires or miracles was a massive amount of work. Otherwise, it's only one data point, but it really did play well at the table.

Would you veer towards Freebooters or Errant for a procedure focused (what are Moves if not fiction triggered procedures…) OSR game?

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Would you veer towards Freebooters or Errant for a procedure focused (what are Moves if not fiction triggered procedures…) OSR game?

I'm not familiar with Freebooters, so I can't reasonably say I'd pick one over the other. I do like Errant enough that I've mostly stopped exploring the OSR space for the moment -- I'll need to play it before the captain of my brainship starts looking for new plunder.

 

[Celebrim]

She has a good discussion of what she thinks about as procedures and how all the ones in that book came to be included here as well.

I read her discussion and found it interesting how she was open about how much of a fantasy heartbreaker this was (which I define as taking rules inspiration from multiple other sources and putting them together to suit your own mechanical preferences). But she was also very open I think about her desire to prioritize playing as a game over playing as a simulation, and for me this results in a game which I think best translates into a cRPG - perhaps something along the lines of Darkest Dungeon. Certainly the whole 'torches burn down every time you take a move' feels like its core to both systems. There is a consistent aesthetic here and some interesting design, but ultimately this feels like something that would be fun to play solo if automated and just a chore to play at a table either from the player or GM perspective.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I read her discussion and found it interesting how she was open about how much of a fantasy heartbreaker this was (which I define as taking rules inspiration from multiple other sources and putting them together to suit your own mechanical preferences). But she was also very open I think about her desire to prioritize playing as a game over playing as a simulation, and for me this results in a game which I think best translates into a cRPG - perhaps something along the lines of Darkest Dungeon. Certainly the whole 'torches burn down every time you take a move' feels like its core to both systems. There is a consistent aesthetic here and some interesting design, but ultimately this feels like something that would be fun to play solo if automated and just a chore to play at a table either from the player or GM perspective.

I think this is also a good inspirational text for other RPG designers. Even if one doesn't want to use these procedures, it nicely illustrates the question of what procedures one wants in a game and why.

One of the early dings against Shadowdark when it was in quickstart form, as I mentioned in the original post, was that it didn't have enough procedures. Having run Shadowdark since 2023, I'm not sure I'd want more procedures, myself, but it's nice to know there are weapon quality/breakage rules in Errant that could easily be ported over stops me from having to reinvent the wheel, should I decide I need such a thing in future.

(Ironically, the one procedure I wish more fantasy RPGs would have, given how many adventures start in a tavern, are alcohol rules, aren't in Errant, which otherwise has procedures for so, so many things. I guess I need to finally publish some of my own.)

 

[zakael19]

But she was also very open I think about her desire to prioritize playing as a game over playing as a simulation, and for me this results in a game which I think best translates into a cRPG - perhaps something along the lines of Darkest Dungeon.

I dont understand this. Pretty much every dungeon-focused game has an emphasis on tracking time, some degree of procedure where you mark down light sources (from Shadowdark's real-time to a more classic "at the end of a dungeon turn"), etc. The reason they're not computer games is because the sort of lateral problem solving and creative ping-pong until you come up with something just doesnt work well with a computer.

The procedures in Errant are "hey, here's actual structure for handling all sorts of events instead of making everything up on the fly" - you know, once you rule how a chase works you're supposed to record that and handle all chases the same way for GM and player-consistency.