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

[Vaalingrade]

If someone is offended that @Jack Daniel enjoys a particular type of hard-earned victory, they can speak for themselves. This is the sort of thing I was getting at. One rarely sees this sort of policing done to trad and OC/neo-trad play. Yes, there are arguments, but those involve actual people advocating for what they do.

No one is 'offended' that he enjoys that kind of play.

The problem is that he and other people who talk about OSR just can't resist taking needless shots.

And if you're going to say we were taking shots talking about the 'be a coward or die' element, this very story shows the party getting mauled in both combats they entered and most of the session being about bypassing fights.

 

[kenada]

I don't think anyone was offended that @Jack Daniel enjoys a particular type of hard-earned victory.

I thought it was actually a really cool and compelling play report. But the concluding statements kind of ruined it for me. Jack could have said "I don't think they'd want it any other way" and left it at that. Instead, Jack went on to talk about hollow victories that are handed to people who play other ways.

It's the verbal equivalent of tripping your opponent. I think that the playstyle Jack describes stands on its own merits, but I don't get that impression from Jack's statement. My impression from that is the only way an OSR playstyle can stand is by tearing down alternative playstyles, which is of course absurd.

I read that statement differently. It’s not addressing a particular style but certain things (like fudging) that some GMs or systems do. It might put off those who likes that stuff, but it might also pique the interest of someone who doesn’t. If you take that out, then all you’ve got is some Bowlderized, milquetoast statement that reads like a marketing slogan.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Let me drop you OSR people a questline.

Polygon, a gaming website, is now accepting pitches for articles relating to Tabletop gaming. To those who wish to promote OSR gaming, this is perfect opportunity to pitch the OSR way to hundreds, even thousands, of impressionable gamers. Are there any writers among you who will heed this call?

The answer would be no, because this is the first I heard of that, and looking at the thread conversation, Charlie is already overwhelmed with RPGs and is looking for more boardgames, and they are specifically looking for contributions from people who aren't white men (which again, he's been swamped with).

However, I did just recently do an interview with Andrew Girdwood from Geek Native, so does that count?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Hard-won victories are fine. Getting completely trounced is not fun - especially if you are so out-classed that you can't even defend well enough to escape. Having every corridor in a dungeon lead to an encounter you cannot win is not fun. Playing in an adventure where you lose more XP through character death than you've gained in 6 months of weekly play is not fun.
This has been my experience in the OSR, and how it is intended to play RAW.

I can't tell you what your experiences are, obviously, but I have been saying how they aren't the norm, and certainly aren't RAW. I've pointed out to you several times already how your claims of what is RAW is not true, and yet you keep repeating them as RAW. They aren't. I have no idea why you continue to claim these things when I literally showed you passages from the books that disprove what you're claiming.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I read that statement differently. It’s not addressing a particular style but certain things (like fudging) that some GMs or systems do. It might put off those who likes that stuff, but it might also pique the interest of someone who doesn’t. If you take that out, then all you’ve got is some Bowlderized, milquetoast statement that reads like a marketing slogan.

That seems like splitting hairs. Whether it's a criticism of a playstyle or a criticism of a technique utilized by various playstyles. You don't have to knock down what you don't like in order to build up what you do like. That's a choice, and one that is unlikely to make a good impression on an unbiased observer, or sway them to your opinion.

If what you like is at all worthwhile, it can stand on its own merits. It's okay to not like things but...

If the sentence about liking it is too much like a slogan, then it could have been omitted entirely. I think everyone here is intelligent enough to surmise from the report that it was an enjoyable experience for the group.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And for the record, setting up PCs to always win, or to have every encounter winnable, or making sure even failures are failing forward existed pretty much from the start. I've been in games with DMs like that in the early 80s.

It's also a valid way to play. The only difference is that some editions are easier to play that way RAW than others. But again, not good or bad, but just different. And it's OK. It also means that just because those versions RAW are more mechanically forgiving than 1e, doesn't mean everything is a cakewalk for the PCs. TPKs have occurred in every edition to my knowledge.

20% edition system mechanics, 80% personal playstyle of your group. Not necessarily an OSR thing. More mechanically lethal? Yes, but that in no way means non-OSR is a cakewalk. Those types of phrasings need to stop as well.

 

[kenada]

No one is 'offended' that he enjoys that kind of play.

The problem is that he and other people who talk about OSR just can't resist taking needless shots.

I just find it very paternalistic to lecture someone on how not everyone necessarily has the same play priories or that there are more things in heaven and earth than someone’s philosophy. Some hypothetical player might like something else. What I’m saying is if someone who likes something else wants to speak out in favor of their style, then they can do so on their own accord.

And if you're going to say we were taking shots talking about the 'be a coward or die' element, this very story shows the party getting mauled in both combats they entered and most of the session being about bypassing fights.

My issue with “be a coward or die” is that there are procedures for escaping an encounter. You can potentially get in a fight you can’t win, but the escape procedure is a release valve that prevents things from getting out of control. Someone may still die, but the party will survive. In this particularly case, the party chose not to escape. They pushed on regardless and got to the enjoy the consequences of their choices. It wasn’t pretty, but it was their choice.

 

[kenada]

That seems like splitting hairs. Whether it's a criticism of a playstyle or a criticism of a technique utilized by various playstyles. You don't have to knock down what you don't like in order to build up what you do like. That's a choice, and one that is unlikely to make a good impression on an unbiased observer, or sway them to your opinion.

If what you like is at all worthwhile, it can stand on its own merits. It's okay to not like things but...

If the sentence about liking it is too much like a slogan, then it could have been omitted entirely. I think everyone here is intelligent enough to surmise from the report that it was an enjoyable experience for the group.

Sometimes one can’t help but contrast with other styles. For example, stepping aside from OSR for a moment, how can we discuss Story Now games without implicitly contrasting them with trad or OC/neo-trad? It’s impossible because they have opposed premises. One (Story Now) eschews coming to the table with a prepared plot while the other (particularly OC/neo-trad) considers curation as fundamental to having a meaningful story. If the story emerges through play, then it’s just random stuff that happened rather than being the realization of the arc that was implied by your character’s conception.

Bringing this back to OSR, there are some aspects that are also the opposite of certain styles of play. The idea that the referee is an impartial judge is fundamental. I’d also posit that encounters designed naturalistically rather than balanced with the capabilities of the players’ characters is another fundamental element. If you get into a situation, you’re not expected necessarily to fight through it (and reaction rolls are there to help keep the referee honest). At some point when discussing those things, you’re going to have to contrast with other styles or techniques.

I don’t think trying to make a good impression on an unbiased observer is worthwhile. It’s something that doesn’t exist. We all have our biases. If one is trying to recruit new players, then you’re going to see much better results trying to appeal to those who aren’t doing your thing but might have preferences that align than by trying to appeal in the abstract to a hypothetical, unbiased observer. Of course, when contrasting, don’t be a jerk about it. I just think sometimes it’s going to be contentious regardless.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sometimes one can’t help but contrast with other styles. For example, stepping aside from OSR for a moment, how can we discuss Story Now games without implicitly contrasting them with trad or OC/neo-trad? It’s impossible because they have opposed premises. One (Story Now) eschews coming to the table with a prepared plot while the other (particularly OC/neo-trad) considers curation as fundamental to having a meaningful story. If the story emerges through play, then it’s just random stuff that happened rather than being the realization of the arc that was implied by your character’s conception.

Bringing this back to OSR, there are some aspects that are also the opposite of certain styles of play. The idea that the referee is an impartial judge is fundamental. I’d also posit that encounters designed naturalistically rather than balanced with the capabilities of the players’ characters is another fundamental element. If you get into a situation, you’re not expected necessarily to fight through it (and reaction rolls are there to help keep the referee honest). At some point when discussing those things, you’re going to have to contrast with other styles or techniques.

I don’t think trying to make a good impression on an unbiased observer is worthwhile. It’s something that doesn’t exist. We all have our biases. If one is trying to recruit new players, then you’re going to see much better results trying to appeal to those who aren’t doing your thing but might have preferences that align than by trying to appeal in the abstract to a hypothetical, unbiased observer. Of course, when contrasting, don’t be a jerk about it. I just think sometimes it’s going to be contentious regardless.

Does this genuinely seem like an example of something that couldn't have been explained without contrast? I think the play report itself had already accomplished that, and I already suggested a rewrite to the sentence that demonstrated it wasn't in any way critical. If anything, it detracted from the overall point.

Sure, when the point is to contrast two styles and tease out their differences, there's nothing wrong with that. Presumably, one can accomplish that without trying to tear down either side.

However, I disagree that it was the case in this instance. IMO, it was completely unnecessary and added nothing positive to the discussion. If anything, I think it inflamed tensions and polarized opinions even more. That's not productive to discourse. If we're not here for discourse, then why are we here? To scream at each other "I'M RIGHT!!! YOU'RE WRONG!!!" until someone has an aneurysm? That's certainly not why I'm here, and if that's really the point then I'll show myself out.

 

[kenada]

Does this genuinely seem like an example of something that couldn't have been explained without contrast? I think the play report itself had already accomplished that, and I already suggested a rewrite to the sentence that demonstrated it wasn't in any way critical. If anything, it detracted from the overall point.

We’re probably going to end up having to agree to disagree, but I thought it was pretty mild. I can see how it would appeal to someone who dislikes fudged rolls or might be interested in that style of play (but had never done it) while being totally off-putting to someone who values those things.

What I think would have gone too far is if it denigrated those who liked that sort of play. I don’t think making a categorical statement regarding a certain style (that it needs certain properties and eschews others) necessarily denigrates. However, I’ll concede that while I think the contrast was important, it could have been expressed more artfully (though probably not as succinctly).

Sure, when the point is to contrast two styles and tease out their differences, there's nothing wrong with that. Presumably, one can accomplish that without trying to tear down either side.

The problem is that sometimes even a mild statement can be controversial. I almost didn’t include my example regarding encounter balance because I have been in Pathfinder discussions where suggesting that encounters could combine or be run organically was controversial, and it just gets really fatiguing having to tiptoe around everyone’s sensibilities.

However, I disagree that it was the case in this instance. IMO, it was completely unnecessary and added nothing positive to the discussion. If anything, I think it inflamed tensions and polarized opinions even more. That's not productive to discourse.

I think the fact that we’re having this conversation is a positive development, though I doubt that was the intended outcome.

If we're not here for discourse, then why are we here? To scream at each other "I'M RIGHT!!! YOU'RE WRONG!!!" until someone has an aneurysm? That's certainly not why I'm here, and if that's really the point then I'll show myself out.

But I thought arguing at each other is what the Internet was for.