MichaelSomething
Legend
You're doing your part!!!
Though I do find it a bit strange that a good deal of this thread is people talking about what OSR is instead of developing marketing strategies and recruitment efforts...
OSR Is there room in modern gaming for the OSR to bring in new gamers?
You're doing your part!!!
Though I do find it a bit strange that a good deal of this thread is people talking about what OSR is instead of developing marketing strategies and recruitment efforts...
Sacrosanct
Legend
Well, most people in this thread are not publishers, so what can they do? Just invite others to their games (which was suggested). That's pretty much it, I think.
For publishers, you do advertising, but most indie publishers have limited budgets. It's not like we have the current support of WoTC or their advertising budget to create an advertising campaign. And why would they, it would run counter to their own goals of supporting 5e as the go to version.
Rob Kuntz
Hero
As always you are very thoughtful.Rob, a really interesting post with some great points. This is not to argue against your post (for that would be a foolish endeavour) but I guess some thoughts on what you’ve stated?
I think when MOST people (for their will always be puritans of all factions thst refuse to accept a broader view) talk of schools, it’s not so much hard categorisation, merely an expression of the human tendency to try and categorise things. These things are alike. These espouse similar philosophies in their design and approaches, thus these can be grouped one way. Something I don’t think is unique to OSR as it can also apply to vastly different new wave story games and the like.
Does the OSR have to evolve as a constant design goal? The intention of some games is supposed to be a recreation of then out of print rules sets to preserve them because some players enjoyed and still enjoy those rulesets. For example, does Monopoly or cluedo need to evolve in order to stay relevant (I mean yeah, they come out with special editions and twists but the core game pretty much stays the same). Does that make those games any less legitimate in the eyes of gamers?
I feel this politicisation and codification is the reactionary side that I was alluding to in a prior post. For some, that can be enough (try these games as they were and enjoy them as they were). But I think this initial regression can actually benefit all. There are plenty in the OSR movement that do want to experiment and explore and created systems to do that. The reactionary systems can provide a common starting point to explore new avenues not taken to explore new frontiers of fantasy.
For example, in Dungeon Crawl Classics, Goodman calls out this tendency to revert back to TSR mechanics and encourages others to move beyond. DCC being created as a new rule set to explore and engage with the appendix N literature (which, whilst old, has lain fallow in recent years and so a new experience for some). Others are using this baseline to twist the mechanics and presentation around what can be done with these rules paradigms. So I don’t feel it’s entirely static or fossilised either?
But yeah, a great post, got me really thinking
OK. TT Games preceding RPGS are not a good comparison. This is a new game form. We are adding to it and have the ability in real time to change it, sometimes drastically, depending. It is of itself an evolving, living design and play form and is unlike any other game in the history of games.
To the evolvement issue of the OSR, I will clarify. Given that there is no one true path for implementing the game, it is then conceivable that thousands of individual variations would occur as was the case initially (apprx. 1974-1977). When that began dropping off, and then later stopped occurring in the vast majority of cases, coincided with a move to "Standardization". With that came the jettisoning of main-line design thinking "within" the game and its play. This also coincided with the RPGA's way of "doing it correctly" in TSR sponsored tournament play. All of this contributed to a precise, predictable system and allowed the DMs for the most part to slightly adjust some of the system. This was, "get on board with this one system" and tinker within its confines rather than promoting hundreds to thousands of variations that could have lead to new and evolved RPG matter as then understood (whether adjacent to D&D or not, didn't matter). Information and inquiry became very narrow to fit into this marketed model. This calcification is what lead to the "One True Wayism" of closed models which persists to this day, no matter what system is now played 1st-5th.
So, no, in light of what I believe people believe the OSR cannot evolve as a group if they were to adhere to a group principal only. But individuals make up groups; and the OSR has seemingly abandoned on the individual level of progressing the concept as was originally recommended and exampled.
Arneson and his group, after 1.5 years of playing Blackmoor, was STILL iterating the rules and the play forms (and thus expanding the world information) by experimenting with both categories: Kind & Degree, this before presenting it to us in 1972. Then we did the same for over a year. The rules and play grew in the backwash of the play-tests until Gary thought we had the base amount to launch. This base, we figured and just as Arneson had done, and as we had done, would be filled in by those who experimented further with their own variations or who would cover what we had not experienced (in the infinite possibilities of a Fantasy world) and thus expose matter that we could not have foreseen for the limitless data variations. Thus from Arneson to us, to hundreds of initial DMs and players evolution was encouraged; and due to the infinite range and possibilities attending the infinite realm of Fantasy it was a given that game/play evolvement would occur and indeed persist.
But markets will be markets. The median market (which rejected D&D as a design philosophy model) is not where the D&D-RPG concept was produced and IMO is not its final destination. There's more to Fantasy than meets the eye and the adventures to uncover its many facets will continue even if the systems that could allow for its summoning do circle too comfortably and are too content as of late.
transmission89
Hero
A really great insight here! I understand what you’re saying about the initial growth of the game and, from sources at the time, Gary’s then concern that d&d was becoming a “non game”.
But then I suppose a follow up question, do we really need a million and one rulesets to explore these facets? After all, one can only play so many different games in their lifetime, time spent learning rules is time taken from creating adventures (note, I’m not advocating sticking to only one system, indeed I encourage playing a wide variety, but I’m sure every person has their upper limit before they find their jam).
Wasn’t the original message, idea to use the common framework of the rules as a base to bolt on and expand for your game rather than diversify into different rules sets? For example, I hear accounts that Mr Tim Kask plays “od&d “ but that is a very loose descriptor of what he does with it.
I think many in the OSR do want new options, ideas, suggestions to tinker with their preferred ruleset and customise and kit bash it. As far as I’m aware, that was the original vision? Indeed, I sense some fatigue in the community for yet another ruleset (this gets expressed often enough in the osr Reddit for example).
So I guess, to some extent, is the OSR group not already doing what you’re expressing, but in their homes, their groups, rather than in publications?
Sacrosanct
Legend
Coincidentally enough, when I was asked this question in the interview, this is how I answered:
Q) I don't think there's a right answer to this... but you've mentioned rulings over rules, danger and zero to hero. Is that how you define OSR? Is there an accepted definition?
I don't think there is any "one true way" to define the OSR, because the OSR above all else is meant to emulate the feel and/or mechanics of many games from the 70s/80s. Since there were so many games even then, there is no real way one could define the OSR objectively. That said, I think most fans of the OSR would agree on common themes. Those being rulings over rules, zero to hero, mechanically more lethal of a system, sandbox play, etc. Because gaming was still new back then, and we didn't have the internet where you get an instant answer to a question by the design team, most tables were coming up with stuff on the fly. That fostered a lot of creativity and homebrew. Players were encouraged to come up with their own stuff. I know this is anecdotal, but it seems that there are fewer GMs today who are creating their own game worlds and adventures than in the 80s, where nearly everyone I met was doing that.
So not the best answer, but at least I mentioned how there isn't any one true way of defining it, which I think is the important part.
Q) I don't think there's a right answer to this... but you've mentioned rulings over rules, danger and zero to hero. Is that how you define OSR? Is there an accepted definition?
I don't think there is any "one true way" to define the OSR, because the OSR above all else is meant to emulate the feel and/or mechanics of many games from the 70s/80s. Since there were so many games even then, there is no real way one could define the OSR objectively. That said, I think most fans of the OSR would agree on common themes. Those being rulings over rules, zero to hero, mechanically more lethal of a system, sandbox play, etc. Because gaming was still new back then, and we didn't have the internet where you get an instant answer to a question by the design team, most tables were coming up with stuff on the fly. That fostered a lot of creativity and homebrew. Players were encouraged to come up with their own stuff. I know this is anecdotal, but it seems that there are fewer GMs today who are creating their own game worlds and adventures than in the 80s, where nearly everyone I met was doing that.
So not the best answer, but at least I mentioned how there isn't any one true way of defining it, which I think is the important part.
Democratus
Adventurer
I would hope that everyone experements (maybe even wildly) at their homes and with their groups. Part of the fun of playing in a fantasy world is figuring out how to do crazy fantasy stuff.
We didn't have a system in our game for how to steer a floating mote of rock or what it takes to divert a river of lava. But when the occasion arose, we all (players & DMs) put our heads together and hashed something out. Each new thing, if it works, finds its way into a binder in case we want to reference it again.
I'd thought this was SOP for all games, whether they be OSR or the most recent edition.
We didn't have a system in our game for how to steer a floating mote of rock or what it takes to divert a river of lava. But when the occasion arose, we all (players & DMs) put our heads together and hashed something out. Each new thing, if it works, finds its way into a binder in case we want to reference it again.
I'd thought this was SOP for all games, whether they be OSR or the most recent edition.
Let's go from another angle.
Often in VTM, you play as a neonate. You don't have much power in undead society and you are constantly under the control of others.
But you don't tell new players that!
Let them figure that out later. Tell them about the fancy society and how you can punk humans. The cliques and history and war.
Leave the prince and elders being jerks and the beast screwing you over hard out of the introduction. Weasel it into the discussion later. That part is really fun but it isn't attractive.
Often in VTM, you play as a neonate. You don't have much power in undead society and you are constantly under the control of others.
But you don't tell new players that!
Let them figure that out later. Tell them about the fancy society and how you can punk humans. The cliques and history and war.
Leave the prince and elders being jerks and the beast screwing you over hard out of the introduction. Weasel it into the discussion later. That part is really fun but it isn't attractive.
Vaalingrade
Legend
It's not lecturing on play priorities, it's pointing out the premise of the thread: one of the obstacles to getting people into OSR being the obnoxious attitude.
The consequence of you choice to engage in exciting combat always being getting ganked is exactly what I consider to be coward or die. One of the survivors is the one who did nothing because they did nothing. That's the narrative I hear often in glowing terms out of OSR games: you guys would have been fine if you hadn't tried to fight that or ran away. Y'know, cowardice.
And I know that discretion is the better part of valor and you should run away from dragons and crap. But this seems to be extended to almost everything in the stories that get told by people who feel that's awesome. And more power to them, but you must know how that looks to someone who grew up on the Conan movies instead of the Conan books.
The player seems not to thought of it this way, but from my point of view, the dwarf was punished for exploring, then the party was punished for trying to recoup their treasure which I'm assuming considering this is OSR is their means of leveling up.
jmartkdr2
Hero
It's gonna be really hard to sell people something if you can't tell them what it is. Which means, I think, that the answer to OP's question is both yes and no.
Yes: there's plenty of people who might be interested in trying your game, and the only way to know is to ask! Note that at this level, OSR, as a concept, is irrelevant. You're not asking people to play OSR. You're asking them to play Chromatic Dungeons, and the specifics of that game are going to matter more than anything.
No: the "movement" is a reactionary force to the direction(s) of the most popular game(s), so no one can be expected to have the same reaction without the same thing to react against. OSR as a sub-group doesn't make sense from outside the ttrpg hobby.
Yeah. But without proper guidance of what the RAI is, the RAW will win out. And we've established that the RAW isn't the "true" way to play a game in the OSR mindset. The RAI exists only in the memory of Gygax and Arneson, creators like Rob Kuntz who post on here, etc. The books should reflect how the game should be played, not with an asterisk that means "yeah, but we don't really play it that way." If we're going to be preserving this playstyle beyond just some sort of oral tradition it needs to be carried on in print, and the OSR is best situated to carry on that legacy (rather than just reprinting and slighting reformatting the games from 40-50 years ago).
You're right. But that's how it comes across in play regardless. Unless you have access to that RAI and decades of evolution and houserules, the game plays exactly that way. Especially for new players - who, if we're being honest, probably came from more modern rules that are more explicitly spelled out and will look for "official rules" other than GM fiat.
The issue is that the books are inconsistent, and if an inexperienced gamer comes across something presented as a rule, that's going to be what they go with. Granted, I am not well versed in every OSR product, I can point out examples from OSE, since it's what I have played most recently, have readily available, and is sort of the industry leader ATM.
OSE p12
"Hit Points (hp) The character’s ability to avoid dying. The character has a maximum hit point total and a current hit point total, which are tracked separately. When a character is harmed, their current hit point total is reduced. If this number reaches 0, the character is dead! Rest or healing can restore lost hit points (see p104), but never above the character’s maximum hit point total (this is only increased when the character increases in level)."
OSE p15
"7. Roll Hit Points Determine your character’s hit points by rolling the die type appropriate to the chosen class. Modifiers for high or low Constitution apply (see Ability Scores, p16). Your character always starts with at least 1 hit point, regardless of CON modifier. Re-Rolling 1s and 2s (Optional Rule) If your roll for hit points comes up 1 or 2 (before applying any CON modifier), the referee may allow you to re-roll. This is in order to increase the survivability of 1st level PCs."
OSE p121
"Death: A character or monster reduced to 0 hit points or less is killed."
You don't get death saves, no dying out. You're just dead. End of character. OSE at least as the courtesy to let you re-roll 1s or 2s at 1st level as an optional rule.
OSE p104
"The referee may use a character’s ability scores to determine the character’s chance of succeeding at various challenging tasks."
OSE p216 [bolded part mine]
"Resolving actions: When a player wishes to do something not covered by a standard rule, the referee must consider how to determine the outcome. Sometimes, the situation can be dealt with simply by deciding what would happen. Sometimes, the referee may require the player to make an ability check (see p104) or a saving throw (see p105) to determine what happens. Other times, the referee may judge the likelihood of the action succeeding (e.g. expressed as a percentage or X-in-6 chance), tell the player the chances, and let them decide whether to take the risk or not."
So there is a section, in the chapter for how to GM the game, a single line that vaguely says "GM fiat." Otherwise, there are twice as many lines in the same paragraph that talk about the rules - not to mention the previous chapters (also geared to players) about character creation and the rules system itself that take great pains to describe the method of mechanical resolution.
