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).

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think that's what we call "fail forward." There are numerous success states in modern game design. Like the FFG Star Wars dice can succeed a check while failing in other ways. It's really up to the GM's narrative control - and the dice don't actually matter.

I'm pretty sure fail forward is to make sure the dice don't stall out the game, not that literally every roll that doesn't succeed doesn't fail.

 

[Democratus]

I'm pretty sure fail forward is to make sure the dice don't stall out the game, not that literally every roll that doesn't succeed doesn't fail.

Just as there are many definitions of old school and new school, there are many views on what fail-forward means.

Things like this are why we talk past each other as often as we actually communicate.

 

[Istbor]

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.

None of what you said helped me understand further. Either you lose me with jargon, or you are just further describing games I have ran or played in. Combat as war is not IMO unique to OSR. And the only times I may have fudged rolls as DM is if I realized I made a mistake on my end. Either mathematically or just misinterpreted how a monster/NPC ability actually works.

I have never had a problem promoting a cool and fun story, while also offing player characters. People die in fiction all the time. I guess then, part of the confusion, is this forced dichotomy I see presented. That Modern must be this, while OSR must be that. Perhaps these things are as cut and dry as we like to think?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Maybe. In my experience, usually if you don't set up encounters independent of the PCs capabilities, then those combats are going to favor them so heavily that victory is practically a foregone conclusion. It's the way 5e is designed. I try my best to push the CR envelope, but PCs are so powerful it can be exhausting, especially if you're using published adventures and have to change every encounter.

I think 5e raw is CaP.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm pretty sure fail forward is to make sure the dice don't stall out the game, not that literally every roll that doesn't succeed doesn't fail.

I've understood fail forward as a way to build into the rules a positive (do this) version of some classic negative (don't do this) dm advice: don't let one roll stop the game, (becomes 'do create a new opportunity whenever the rules close one off) don't roll if one of the two possible results is "nothing changes." (becomes "always have something change - either the game state or the player information")

Active fail forward mechanics (on a fail, X happens) is actually really tricky to build into DnD because a lot of DnD rolls (especially in combat) look like they do nothing, when they actually waste a resource - usually an action. But for explicitly non-combat sections, mimicking fail forward mechanics can work.

In other words, as usual: depends on what you mean by "fail forward".

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

True enough, though IME most players accustomed to CaS (which should possibly be more accurately called CaP) are extremely reluctant to retreat (gods forbid surrender), and ironically, the lack of a defined retreat rule/mechanic in the core D&D rules for the past... 30+ years? compounds the issue.

One interesting thing I've noticed since I started actually playing the older editions that I didn't really understand as a kid, is how many mechanics there are which offset the apparent deadliness of having low HP and poor saves. From retreat rules, to reaction rolls, to morale rolls for enemies, to cheap plate armor often easily affordable at first level, to the concept of hiring hireling meatshields/spear-carriers to spread the risk around (which simpler combat mechanics make easier to do).

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I would ask: why wouldn’t there be?

Are new players really a monolithic group?

boardgames are popular now and it seems rather than crowding older games out, newer games create more options.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Maybe. In my experience, usually if you don't set up encounters independent of the PCs capabilities, then those combats are going to favor them so heavily that victory is practically a foregone conclusion. It's the way 5e is designed. I try my best to push the CR envelope, but PCs are so powerful it can be exhausting, especially if you're using published adventures and have to change every encounter.

I think 5e raw is CaP.

You can set up encounters however you want.

I'd say 5e defaults to the easier end of CaS, particularly if you play with all of the optional stuff and/or the players optimize. That doesn't mean that you need to run it that way, or that everyone does.

I see nothing to suggest that 5e is CaP. As far as I can tell, WWN has more (admittedly optional) rules for running a CaP campaign than 5e does.

 

[Istbor]

If you’ve played 3-5e, your character has not been on a zero to hero arc (at least in the way a more old school game frames it). You have a lot more going for the “power level” of a character compared to the older games. It’s more akin to hero to super hero from an osr perspective. This isn’t to edition bash, or attack a game, just pointing out a difference. it is one youd definitely notice if you played an osr game for a sustained amount of time.

The OSR rulings over rules is emphasised to some extent because, yes, you do that in later editions, but to a great extent, the older games require it to function. And this leads to a beautiful experience. You’re not playing “d&d”. You’re playing my game, or Kenada’s game or Jack Daniel’s game. Yes they will have the same base, but it presents a lighter framework to kit bash, customise and tweak.

This doesn’t mean the referee rules with an iron fist. Because there is a lot of space between the rules, player negotiation with the referee is expected. “I want to do this”, “ you can try, but because of x, it’s difficult”, “well, I think I’d know how to do this because of x and I’m also going to use y”, “sure, that’ll improve your odds”.
If you maintain a group, it becomes your group’s game, your group creates not just the adventure, but contributes to the system as well.

As I stated. I have played in much older editions. I don't really see this difference that people keep saying is there. I don't think anyone is really more of a zero than another due to edition, because the expectations on the monster side are also different.

What's more, that bottom paragraph is again, something that happens all the time in our current 5e games. I have never let rules necessarily get in the way of the game, or what people want to attempt.

So I guess then I would argue if you play at my table you aren't playing D&D, you are playing Istbor's game. How is that 'really' that different?

 

[Micah Sweet]

You can set up encounters however you want.

I'd say 5e defaults to the easier end of CaS, particularly if you play with all of the optional stuff and/or the players optimize. That doesn't mean that you need to run it that way, or that everyone does.

I see nothing to suggest that 5e is CaP. As far as I can tell, WWN has more (admittedly optional) rules for running a CaP campaign than 5e does.

I would argue that implicitly, core 5e assumes that combats are an entertaining romp for your players, where they can feel like they're challenged (without actually being challenged) while they show off their cool abilities. You absolutely can change that assumption, but it takes work and it doesn't make it not the assumption.