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

[jmartkdr2]

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.

It's worth noting that the most common place to see that phrase is in regards to 5e DnD - where it can seem to mean "the designers decided to write all the rules vaguely and get annoyed when people are confused by this."

 

[Umbran]

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...

So, in this you elide from "we" to "one".

Let me counter that with... novels. One person can only read so many novels in their lifetime. If one person can only read X novels... do we not only need X novels to exist, ever? Of course not., because we have millions of different readers, with different desires. We need many times X novels to exist, so that folks can have choice.

We have millions of people who play RPGs, too, so, we can reasonably have many times the number of games any one of us can hope to play to allow for choice and personal preference.

What "one" needs, and what "we" need, are not the same.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Could someone tell mewhat the goal is here? Like do you want tons of people to buy 1E books and run Keep on the Borderlands? For Goodman Games to sell a million copies of Dungeon Crawl Classics? For Garycon to have 40 thousand attendees?

 

[Malmuria]

Yeah. But without proper guidance of what the RAI is, the RAW will win out.

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.

Is this true, though? I can see this being the case for players of 5e or pathfinder who play close attention to the rules of those systems. Those players might want a level of consistency and "officialness" in the rules. But it seems like even that's a minority among those players (and anecdotally, at my 5e table half the players don't have and don't bother to read any of the rules. They just try to do something and then ask the dm what they should add to their roll).

It's hard to learn a game just by reading the rules, even board games (I remember plenty of arguments and house rules while playing Monopoly). Learning an rpg via a rulebook is like trying to learn a language via a grammar book. Further, some people have more patience and aptitude for reading and understanding rules, and get intimidated by having to read one (or three) large rulebooks. In that sense OSE or the black hack has a lower barrier to entry for truly new players and kids.

Games are social experiences and most of your play experience comes down to how much you trust you have with your group no matter the ruleset.

 

[kenada]

Could someone tell mewhat the goal is here? Like do you want tons of people to buy 1E books and run Keep on the Borderlands? For Goodman Games to sell a million copies of Dungeon Crawl Classics? For Garycon to have 40 thousand attendees?

I assume it’s to respond to the question asked in the opening post: “Has our community changed that much that not only is there no room in modern gaming for the OSR to bring in new gamers, but it’s actively harmful to bringing them in as that comment implies?”

 

[kenada]

Is this true, though? I can see this being the case for players of 5e or pathfinder who play close attention to the rules of those systems. Those players might want a level of consistency and "officialness" in the rules. But it seems like even that's a minority among those players (and anecdotally, at my 5e table half the players don't have and don't bother to read any of the rules. They just try to do something and then ask the dm what they should add to their roll).

I think there is a lack of trust in GMs to fulfill their obligation to be an impartial referee. Newer rules purport to protect players from bad GMs by codifying more things and reducing GM discretion. Well, theoretically. I’ve played for bad GMs in 3e and 4e, and the rules didn’t exactly stop them. If a GM is inclined to capriciousness, they’re going to do it regardless of what the rules say.

 

[Minigiant]

I think there is a lack of trust in GMs to fulfill their obligation to be an impartial referee. Newer rules purport to protect players from bad GMs by codifying more things and reducing GM discretion. Well, theoretically. I’ve played for bad GMs in 3e and 4e, and the rules didn’t exactly stop them. If a GM is inclined to capriciousness, they’re going to do it regardless of what the rules say.

I don't the the point of newer rules were to protect players from bad DMs.I think they were to put players and DMs on the same page as the game expanded and fan started to have different ideas and concepts on fantasy.

The biggest hurdle OSR has is that the game replicate a style of fantasy that isn't one of the popular types of fantasy anymore and has not been for 20-30 years. The rules of OS that were revived in OSR have many Sword and Sorcery inspirations but S&S has been kicked off the winner's podium in popular media since sometime in the 90s.

 

[kenada]

I don't the the point of newer rules were to protect players from bad DMs.I think they were to put players and DMs on the same page as the game expanded and fan started to have different ideas and concepts on fantasy.

I don’t think they functionally do either, but that seems to be the assumption behind wanting less fiat (or treating any ruling as fiat and therefore problematic).

The biggest hurdle OSR has is that the game replicate a style of fantasy that isn't one of the popular types of fantasy anymore and has not been for 20-30 years. The rules of OS that were revived in OSR have many Sword and Sorcery inspirations but S&S has been kicked off the winner's podium in popular media since sometime in the 90s.

Old-school games could do heroic fantasy. It’s not like they had to take the approach the OSR takes. That’s how we ended up with how things are in newer editions. It was the dominant style. However, that’s not one of the priorities for OSR play. If you abandon that, then you just end up with what everyone else is already doing.

I think you’ve touched on it a few times already in this thread. OSR games need a strong pitch. They shouldn’t shy away from depicting an interesting setting where people will want to adventure. Games like Worlds Without Number and Mörk Borg are good for the OSR (and the latter got James Maliszewski blogging again!).

@Malmuria brought up earlier the DIY creativity in the OSR community. It’s not all to my taste, but that’s totally cool. I love seeing people be excited to create and share new stuff. I think that can be another way to sell people on OSR games.

 

[Fenris-77]

So, being a fairly experienced fellow in the OSR scene, I can say that it is not, at this point, a bastion of old grumpy grognards. Not only that, but it is also the basis for a lot of exciting and creative game design crossing multiple gaming genres. It wouldn't have even occurred to me to ask the question in the OP. Does anyone really think that Mork Borg is the product of grognard sympathies, or that it hasn't grown the hobby? Probably not. Anyway, that's my two cents, I'm sure the opinions of other will differ.

 

[Minigiant]

I don’t think they functionally do either, but that seems to be the assumption behind wanting less fiat (or treating any ruling as fiat and therefore problematic).

Well that's the problem.

You formalize the idea too hard and a chunk of people hate it (4e) but if you do little and leave it up to them they can't agree (5e)

Old-school games could do heroic fantasy. It’s not like they had to take the approach the OSR takes. That’s how we ended up with how things are in newer editions. It was the dominant style. However, that’s not one of the priorities for OSR play. If you abandon that, then you just end up with what everyone else is already doing.

true.

I think you’ve touched on it a few times already in this thread. OSR games need a strong pitch. They shouldn’t shy away from depicting an interesting setting where people will want to adventure. Games like Worlds Without Number and Mörk Borg are good for the OSR (and the latter got James Maliszewski blogging again!).

Exactly. You aren't going to pull people in with a simple skeleton or a simple skeleton with a unexplained flavor draped on top of it. OSR has to realize that isn't 1983 and actual hard work in persuasion must be done.

It's like putting a Western in today's theaters. You gotta make that trailer and those commercials look really awesome.