OSR Is there room in modern gaming for the OSR to bring in new gamers?

[Sithlord]

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.

I don’t see GM fiat in there anywhere. I see your chance of success on an action if it is possible is an ability check or a saving those. And for some things a flat random chance that is X d6. Just like any other rpg when something comes up. Make a dex check. Make a strength check.

 

[Rob Kuntz]

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?

Well, I am more interested in it as a new conceptual system never before organized and promoted in history and that has wider application than just in an RPG, which, coincidentally, has been shown to be true many times over. In late 1974, for instance we received a letter from two Unv, of Chicago professors thanking TSR for the game and that they were using it as a learning tool in their classes. This just touches on the concept's breadth of application. So, if you view the concept as a three dimensional throttle and through the inquiry process apply that throttle to each KIND and measure it by DEGREE within it, you now begin to assess its range, its inner systemic structure's expandability and its possible other external relationships. In summary, this forces new matter into view immediately. When first faced with the concept I did just that and by early 1975 had attached what I call "The God Game Model" to it and played it for three months with a select number of LG gamers.

So, as is, yes, it's always horizontally expandable by progressing what is known. I am more interested in the route Arneson took to originate it in the first place as a breakthrough model and thus am concerned with its possible vertical integrative route which could produce overlapping models as I proved with TGGM.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

Agreed! And those are in other questions I was asked

 

[Retreater]

I don’t see GM fiat in there anywhere. I see your chance of success on an action if it is possible is an ability check or a saving those. And for some things a flat random chance that is X d6. Just like any other rpg when something comes up. Make a dex check. Make a strength check.

All of that is the textbook definition of fiat. A GM "simply decides what should happen" (fiat). A GM can make a decision if it's an ability check or saving throw (fiat). Or a GM can decide to roll x-in-6 chance (fiat) and determine what the x is (fiat).

The example you just quoted is 100% fiat.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The GM decides what adventure and game system to run, so the whole thing is just fiat!!

 

[kenada]

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.

Part of attracting people to a given style is filtering out those for whom it is a poor fit. Like I said in my reply to @Fanaelialae, I consider the original post to be fairly mild. If someone is going to be put off by that, then OSR play may not be for them, and I think that’s okay.

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.

It came up in a discussion of lethality. That’s a feature of OSR play. If that’s off-putting, and contrasting it in the abstract is obnoxious, then how does one disclose and discuss that? I doubt it would be helpful to new players to put their characters in a dangerous situation without their understanding the parameters of their predicament.

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.

Setbacks are a common trope in fiction, but I don’t think that’s the problem. I think the actual problem is assumptions from other styles of play (particularly trad and OC/neo-trad) are being held against a style that doesn’t share those assumptions. Setbacks emerge organically in OSR play. They’re not (as I understand it) something that requires consent or negotiation to include as part of the collectively told story.

You’ll have to excuse my clumsy framing since those style don’t particularly resonate with me (I tend to prefer OSR or Story Now). Hopefully that makes sense.

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.

I’d only view it as punishment if there was no way to deescalate the conflict, but there was. The character made a choice not to retreat, and he went down fighting. Everyone had fun in the end, which is all that actually matters. Assuming the retreating sahuagin took the treasure, now they have a new situation, and I expect the party is having fun scheming to get that treasure back (with even more personal stakes since it was their treasure).

 

[Sithlord]

All of that is the textbook definition of fiat. A GM "simply decides what should happen" (fiat). A GM can make a decision if it's an ability check or saving throw (fiat). Or a GM can decide to roll x-in-6 chance (fiat) and determine what the x is (fiat).

The example you just quoted is 100% fiat.

Huh. On eh I considered fiat the DM just predetermining the outcome without players choice. Allowing a check to see what happens is kinda like telling the DM that asks u to make a stealth check that he is doing a DM fiat. I really never thought letting the dice determine was DM fiat.

 

[jmartkdr2]

There's a point at which the rules become so fuzzy that you remove any skilled play in the colloquial sense - you can't really win Calvinball through skill.

But ignoring hyperbolic strawmen - it depends on what you mean by "rulings over rules." If that means "the dm decides what happens based on what (they feel) makes sense in the fiction / would serve the fiction" - the only skill is in playing the to the dm. If RoR means "the designer isn't going to try to make a rule for everything - here's a framework and you can fill in details as needed" - that's just a (hopefully solid) core mechanic and an expectation of houserules being added after. Then the players' skills are testable in the moment, assuming they know what houserules are in play*

* (known-unknowns are not a problem for skilled play - that's a part of risk assessment. It's fine if I don't know the enemy's AC - I know there is an AC, presumably a fixed one, or at least one that varies according to some set of rules. So long ads it isn't the dm deciding if it would be 'cool' or not for me to hit this turn.)

 

[Retreater]

Huh. On eh I considered fiat the DM just predetermining the outcome without players choice. Allowing a check to see what happens is kinda like telling the DM that asks u to make a stealth check that he is doing a DM fiat. I really never thought letting the dice determine was DM fiat.

And I guess our miscommunication was that I see the method of the task resolution system being completely in the hands of the GM. Because it's kind of a big deal if a Move Silently roll is roll under your Dexterity or if you have a 20% chance.
That's the kind of stuff that I think would be valuable to be codified for new OSR players and GMs.
Also I think having a death save, negative HP before death, maximizing level 1 HP, etc, go a long way for survivability. I think such optional house rules should be presented at the very least.

 

[Sacrosanct]

There's a point at which the rules become so fuzzy that you remove any skilled play in the colloquial sense - you can't really win Calvinball through skill.

But ignoring hyperbolic strawmen - it depends on what you mean by "rulings over rules." If that means "the dm decides what happens based on what (they feel) makes sense in the fiction / would serve the fiction" - the only skill is in playing the to the dm. If RoR means "the designer isn't going to try to make a rule for everything - here's a framework and you can fill in details as needed" - that's just a (hopefully solid) core mechanic and an expectation of houserules being added after. Then the players' skills are testable in the moment, assuming they know what houserules are in play*

* (known-unknowns are not a problem for skilled play - that's a part of risk assessment. It's fine if I don't know the enemy's AC - I know there is an AC, presumably a fixed one, or at least one that varies according to some set of rules. So long ads it isn't the dm deciding if it would be 'cool' or not for me to hit this turn.)

The bolded part is how I've always seen it described. With the addition of, "It seems when everything is codified by a rule, then players will only do what they have a rule for." I.e., players won't attempt to have their PC pick a lock unless they have the lock picking skill. A player might not have their PC participate in a discussion because their PC has a lower persuasion modifier than another PC. Rulings over rules helps mitigate that, and encourages everyone participate or otherwise attempt things, IME.