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

[mamba]

Well? What gives them the right?

common decency

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well? What gives them the right?

The right to complain that the place smells. It's the "rule of stinky places" - you make your bar open to everyone no matter how much they smell and pretty soon the only people who go there will be people with poor b.o., sewer workers, and people who don't care about how much people who smell. And people have the right to say "don't go there, it smells" - and likewise "if you want more people, clean up the place". Likewise in 2023 you make your game open to everyone no matter how racist they are and pretty soon the only people there will be racists and people who don't care about racism.

Some aspects of old-school play, particularly the more adversarial behaviors from DMs (e.g. cursed items, cloakers, ear seekers, rust monsters, etc.) are going to be really really hard to sell as a positive part of a modern gaming experience.

For the record I've never had a problem selling cursed items to my players - but that's because I make the curses risk/reward. For example my "Bloodseeking dagger" that if thrown at a target with blood always has advantage - but if you miss it ends up in the nearest PC. They are always a test of greed or of coolness rather than a straight "this is an unremovable piece of -1 armour".

The frustrating thing is that there IS a way to have this cake and eat it too. Novice levels, or whatever one wishes to call them: levels "before level 1," that are an opt-IN system instead of an opt-OUT system. By making them opt-in, you avoid forcing new players to endure them (or, as stated, skip over them and thus waste the "levels 1-3 are a tutorial" benefit), but you still fully support fans who love that feeling of danger, limited resources, and desperate struggle.

Or, as DCC does, a "level 0 funnel" where you get four random PCs each and the last to survive succeeds

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The right to complain that the place smells. It's the "rule of stinky places" - you make your bar open to everyone no matter how much they smell and pretty soon the only people who go there will be people with poor b.o., sewer workers, and people who don't care about how much people who smell. And people have the right to say "don't go there, it smells" - and likewise "if you want more people, clean up the place". Likewise in 2023 you make your game open to everyone no matter how racist they are and pretty soon the only people there will be racists and people who don't care about racism.

Some like to call this the "paradox of tolerance," but I prefer to call it the challenge of respect. In order to have a place where people are genuinely respectful of one another, or at least actively avoid disrespectful behavior, you cannot permit disrespectful behavior, not even on the grounds that it is more respectful to be patient and forgiving when folks are disrespectful.

For the record I've never had a problem selling cursed items to my players - but that's because I make the curses risk/reward. For example my "Bloodseeking dagger" that if thrown at a target with blood always has advantage - but if you miss it ends up in the nearest PC. They are always a test of greed or of coolness rather than a straight "this is an unremovable piece of -1 armour".

Right. I was specifically speaking of the (many, many) old-school cursed items that are, fully by author intent, almost-indistinguishable from proper and entirely beneficial magic items. The ones meant to punish that "lazy" players who don't get things rigorously identified. I'm sure you've seen or heard of such a thing.

Or, as DCC does, a "level 0 funnel" where you get four random PCs each and the last to survive succeeds

That serves a very different function, so it really would not suffice as an alternative to "novice levels." But it IS a really great piece of design, don't get me wrong. It is not design for me, but I love how smart a design it is.

The thing is, the funnel is a response to a related design issue. It isn't the need for useful tutorial levels nor to wanting to make the early levels dangerous, but rather to a knock-on problem that comes from making the early levels dangerous. Namely, it takes a long time to get anywhere with such stuff. Back when D&D was new, that wasn't as much of a problem for a variety of reasons--the people playing it were younger, often single with no children, focused on college or early career stuff, and things like video games, the internet, and various other forms of fandom had not taken off yet. Requiring several months just to get off the ground with a single character is rough in the modern context. The funnel beautifully solves that problem by compressing that in time. Every character is run through their early-level gauntlet simultaneously, and thus you're (very) likely to get at least one or two characters who survive to reasonable level, where mortality falls off pretty fast.

It's a truly brilliant design move, comparable to some of my favorite design elements in 13A, which likewise solves some thorny design problems with really smart answers. But the problem it solves isn't the problem I had described. A related one, to be sure, but still distinct.

 

[Ondath]

I know this thread is necro'd, but your point about early level lethality being antithetical to their purpose as tutorial levels got me thinking @EzekielRaiden . Having run a campaign that lasted from Level 1 to 17, I can definitely say that my players were in more in life-threatening situations at Level 1 than at Level 17, even though they were fighting the Tarrasque and a Zaratan at Level 17 and some mutated wolves at Level 1. The swinginess of early levels definitely contributed to that. IMO a solution would be to rebrand levels 1 and 2 as lethal "novice" levels, that should be skipped if you want to start with a fully-formed character. But I doubt OneD&D will have that.

Honestly, the solution I would've preferred would've been embracing modularity: Place some dials on the game so that both lethality and heroic fantasy can be achieved. Make Level 3 the official starting point for heroic fantasy, and stop HP increase after Level 10 (much like it was pre-3E) for those who want the grittiness to stay at higher tiers. If 5E was as modular as was initially promised, I think this would be possible (and it'd give more space for OSR in the mainstream, as the "challenge mode"), but as it is it's unlikely to happen.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Right. I was specifically speaking of the (many, many) old-school cursed items that are, fully by author intent, almost-indistinguishable from proper and entirely beneficial magic items. The ones meant to punish that "lazy" players who don't get things rigorously identified. I'm sure you've seen or heard of such a thing.

I think the standout example here isn't something like the Spear (cursed backbiter) that absolutely fits the pattern you point out , but the earseeker - a ridiculous grub that somehow lives in wood but dives into ears and kills people. It was designed by Gygax to prevent listening at doors and was almost immediately hard countered by ear trumpets.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I know this thread is necro'd, but your point about early level lethality being antithetical to their purpose as tutorial levels got me thinking @EzekielRaiden . Having run a campaign that lasted from Level 1 to 17, I can definitely say that my players were in more in life-threatening situations at Level 1 than at Level 17, even though they were faving the Tarrasque and a Zaratan at Level 17 and some mutated wolves at Level 1. The swinginess of early levels definitely contributed to that. IMO a solution would be to rebrand levels 1 and 2 as lethal "novice" levels, that should be skipped if you want to start with a fully-formed character. But I doubt OneD&D will have that.

Honestly, the solution I would've preferred would've been embracing modularity: Place some dials on the game so that both lethality and heroic fantasy can be achieved. Make Level 3 the official starting point for heroic fantasy, and stop HP increase after Level 10 (much like it was pre-3E) for those who want the grittiness to stay at higher tiers. If 5E was as modular as was initially promised, I think this would be possible (and it'd give more space for OSR in the mainstream, as the "challenge mode"), but as it is it's unlikely to happen.

Well, at least for me, I still think a distinct, fully-featured, opt-in "novice-levels" (sub)system would be the best option. That way, you preserve the "well level 1 is where you start, that's why it's called 1, why would you call it 1 if you don't start there?" effect, while still giving the old hands who want a Real Challenge a well-designed set of rules for exactly that experience. Notably, these rules would need to be in the PHB, not squirreled away in some dusty corner of the DMG, to make absolutely clear that "novice levels" are just as much part of the core game as any other--the point is not to push such things to the fringe, but rather to make clear that some games work that way and others don't.

And, yeah, part of that could be rewriting class features so you get all your current-level 3 features at rewritten-level 1. I have my own beefs with that whole thing (because of the aforementioned painfully deeply-ingrained "it's level 1, why would you ever start at something other than level 1 when there's the thing called 'level 1' right there?!?"), but that ship has sailed so long ago there's no benefit arguing over it.

Modularity, frankly, was dead on arrival. They promised the moon and gave us a moon pie. That doesn't mean moon pies are bad, but it's not what was offered and I don't expect any edition of D&D at this point to ever actually do the extensive, rigorous playtesting required to actually make a truly "modular" edition as it was originally sold to us.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think the standout example here isn't something like the Spear (cursed backbiter) that absolutely fits the pattern you point out , but the earseeker - a ridiculous grub that somehow lives in wood but dives into ears and kills people. It was designed by Gygax to prevent listening at doors and was almost immediately hard countered by ear trumpets.

Oh, sure. That's definitely another example, and one I mentioned in the post you quoted. Cloakers are another. "Gotcha" monsters that have little to no logic behind them beyond the DM needing to invent a thing that incisively disrupts the PCs' SOP.

 

[Ondath]

Well, at least for me, I still think a distinct, fully-featured, opt-in "novice-levels" (sub)system would be the best option. That way, you preserve the "well level 1 is where you start, that's why it's called 1, why would you call it 1 if you don't start there?" effect, while still giving the old hands who want a Real Challenge a well-designed set of rules for exactly that experience. Notably, these rules would need to be in the PHB, not squirreled away in some dusty corner of the DMG, to make absolutely clear that "novice levels" are just as much part of the core game as any other--the point is not to push such things to the fringe, but rather to make clear that some games work that way and others don't.

And, yeah, part of that could be rewriting class features so you get all your current-level 3 features at rewritten-level 1. I have my own beefs with that whole thing (because of the aforementioned painfully deeply-ingrained "it's level 1, why would you ever start at something other than level 1 when there's the thing called 'level 1' right there?!?"), but that ship has sailed so long ago there's no benefit arguing over it.

Modularity, frankly, was dead on arrival. They promised the moon and gave us a moon pie. That doesn't mean moon pies are bad, but it's not what was offered and I don't expect any edition of D&D at this point to ever actually do the extensive, rigorous playtesting required to actually make a truly "modular" edition as it was originally sold to us.

Oh yeah, Level 3 would become the new Level 1 with what I'm proposing. And the whole debate about modularity had its own thread waaay before, but I still wish it were possible...

 

[gatorized]

The right to complain that the place smells. It's the "rule of stinky places" - you make your bar open to everyone no matter how much they smell and pretty soon the only people who go there will be people with poor b.o., sewer workers, and people who don't care about how much people who smell. And people have the right to say "don't go there, it smells" - and likewise "if you want more people, clean up the place". Likewise in 2023 you make your game open to everyone no matter how racist they are and pretty soon the only people there will be racists and people who don't care about racism.

For the record I've never had a problem selling cursed items to my players - but that's because I make the curses risk/reward. For example my "Bloodseeking dagger" that if thrown at a target with blood always has advantage - but if you miss it ends up in the nearest PC. They are always a test of greed or of coolness rather than a straight "this is an unremovable piece of -1 armour".

Or, as DCC does, a "level 0 funnel" where you get four random PCs each and the last to survive succeeds

I don't remember voting them in as arbiters of which opinions are correct.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't remember voting them in as arbiters of which opinions are correct.

A convenient sidestepping of the argument.

The challenge of respect remains. You cannot foster an environment where everyone actually behaves respectfully without firmly correcting, or ejecting, people who behave disrespectfully--even if that isn't the absolutely maximal respectful response. This is a demonstrable phenomenon. Failure to fully enforce codes of conduct in widely-accessible spaces leads to that code of conduct being ignored on the regular. And if ignoring that code of conduct results in clientele being disrespectful--or even hostile--to other clientele? The people getting disrespect or hostility will leave. Why wouldn't they? They have every reason to not want to be disrespected (and even more reason to avoid hostility.)

Hence: "I'm not anti-murder. I just don't commit murders myself."

Of course, this then--naturally!--means one should ask what should, or should not, be part of a private enterprise's code of conduct. And, at least in the United States, so long as that code of conduct does not make distinctions on the basis of race, creed, gender, etc., the general consensus legally and ethically is, "Whatever the business wishes." Both you, and this other person, are equally free to claim what you each think should be in that code. The business in question will make the decision for themselves (and may even change that choice over time), unless and until a court of law says otherwise.