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

[Imaro]

I have seen a lot of streams featuring OSR games that feature women and POC, but most of them are indie adjacent streams. That's probably just the space I tend to live in though.

Yep I've seen indie streams as well... but nearly none for OSR. Going to try and find some though.

 

[Mannahnin]

It might just be that I tend to engage with more out there OSR stuff, but I think some of the most interesting new stuff is coming from the OSR space. Games like Worlds Without Number, Beyond The Wall, Electric Bastionland, Ultraviolet Grasslands, Necrolautinus, Mothership and the Nightmares Underneath are exploring some pretty compelling new ground. I think it's actually less ossified than the traditional space.

Exalted Funeral and Tuesday Knight Games are also really leading the way on representation. Dissident Whispers was timely, well designed, had important stuff to say, and like still a quality gaming product first.

Very much this.

There are a bunch of more mechanically innovative variations on the core theme. Leaving aside for the moment the publisher's various controversies and tendency to edgelordism in some of the modules (both of which I think are detrimental to growth in the space) the elements which made Lamentations of the Flame Princess very popular for several years were a combination of a) great physical presentation and b) excellent innovative house rules, like the encumbrance system, the skill system based on OD&D concepts, and the class and magic revisions.

Nowadays we have games like WWN, Mothership, The Nightmares Underneath, Ultraviolet Grasslands' SEACAT, Beyond the Wall, Neoclassical Geek Revival, and the GLOG which do exactly what Rob missed from the reactionary old school crowd. These all build onto the old paradigm and creatively innovate! And at least those first five do that while also being beautifully presented in form.

While OSE is very popular in the old school scene, as a cleaned up and beautifully laid-out version of B/X with new and lovely art (and a couple of optional mechanical tweaks for accessibility, like ascending AC, and re-rolling low HP), it, too, has been tweaked for greater accessibility, ease of use, and "curb appeal". Folks like Democratus are successfully introducing many new players to older rules using this set. I've seen the same phenomenon for the past year in an OSR discord server I'm on, though most of those folks have at least some prior D&D experience. Necrotic Gnome has also been doing a fantastic job supporting this with their online SRD, and series of gorgeous modules with excellent layout and information design to make DMing easier, like Winter's Daughter, and The Hole in the Oak.

 

[Democratus]

Winter's Daughter and Hole in the Oak were fantastically made. Along with Tomb of the Serpent Kings - they are the easiest to run modules I've had thus far.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So here are my "grognard" things that I think are very good for games that some modern designers may not agree are good.
3. Failure. Meaning you try some ability or skill and it fails. It doesn't always have to lead to some other consequence. Sometimes you just try to climb a slick wall and can't.

Is this really a thing you think isn't part of modern game design?

4. Letting the dice fall. That means not fudging things as GM to make the game "better".

Has fudging ever actually been part of the rules?

 

[Istbor]

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.

I think my whole confusion about OSR boils down to this.

I have always played with Rulings over rules, both as player and DM. Danger has always been a part of the game. -RIP My very first Ranger.- And outside of a couple of particular people who made books as backgrounds, we were zero to hero, or at least zero to recognized person. I have played like... once with 2e and 1e?

So, I fail to see a difference fundamentally, from games I have run or play in, to these. What is the distinction, for someone like me to draw on? As, right now, what people have been describing, is just D&D. That is the game I have been playing for a quarter of a century.

 

[Retreater]

Is this really a thing you think isn't part of modern game design?

I think that's what we call "fail forward." There are numerous success states in modern game design. Like the FFG Star Wars dice can succeed a check while failing in other ways. It's really up to the GM's narrative control - and the dice don't actually matter.

 

[Mannahnin]

Has fudging ever actually been part of the rules?

This just came up in the Skilled Play topic discussion. Fudging the dice is specifically brought up and sanctioned (under limited circumstances, to enhance fun and never to the detriment of the PCs) by Gygax in the 1E DMG. It's also mentioned and offered as an option in the DMGs of later editions.

 

[kenada]

I think my whole confusion about OSR boils down to this.

I have always played with Rulings over rules, both as player and DM. Danger has always been a part of the game. -RIP My very first Ranger.- And outside of a couple of particular people who made books as backgrounds, we were zero to hero, or at least zero to recognized person. I have played like... once with 2e and 1e?

So, I fail to see a difference fundamentally, from games I have run or play in, to these. What is the distinction, for someone like me to draw on? As, right now, what people have been describing, is just D&D. That is the game I have been playing for a quarter of a century.

I think the distinction is with “modern” D&D (i.e., trad and OC/neo-trad play) where there is a very large focus on playing through and experiencing a story, especially the realization of character arcs that were seeded during character creation in the case of OC/neo-trad.

It’s a style of play where killing characters is bad because it ruins the (or their) story. The GM may fudge rolls to make sure that narratively important fights carry suitable weight (killing the evil high priest in one round is “boring”). Collaboratively telling a story is more important than OSR-style “skilled play”. In fact, “skilled play” can be disruptive (which I say from experience). While OSR favors “combat as war”, this style is more “combat as sport”.

However, I haven’t seen the term used before, but I was thinking this afternoon. It seems like “combat as performance” may be more accurate. While fights may be meant to be challenging, I don’t think that’s the point. The characters are expected to win (unless the story needs otherwise), so the the challenge is artificial (or performative). The important thing is that fights respect their role in the story, which is why the GM needs to fudge to make sure a climatic encounter is suitably epic. I want to call it “combat as performance” because it brings to mind sports entertainment like professional wrestling.

 

[transmission89]

I think my whole confusion about OSR boils down to this.

I have always played with Rulings over rules, both as player and DM. Danger has always been a part of the game. -RIP My very first Ranger.- And outside of a couple of particular people who made books as backgrounds, we were zero to hero, or at least zero to recognized person. I have played like... once with 2e and 1e?

So, I fail to see a difference fundamentally, from games I have run or play in, to these. What is the distinction, for someone like me to draw on? As, right now, what people have been describing, is just D&D. That is the game I have been playing for a quarter of a century.

If you’ve played 3-5e, your character has not been on a zero to hero arc (at least in the way a more old school game frames it). You have a lot more going for the “power level” of a character compared to the older games. It’s more akin to hero to super hero from an osr perspective. This isn’t to edition bash, or attack a game, just pointing out a difference. it is one youd definitely notice if you played an osr game for a sustained amount of time.

The OSR rulings over rules is emphasised to some extent because, yes, you do that in later editions, but to a great extent, the older games require it to function. And this leads to a beautiful experience. You’re not playing “d&d”. You’re playing my game, or Kenada’s game or Jack Daniel’s game. Yes they will have the same base, but it presents a lighter framework to kit bash, customise and tweak.

This doesn’t mean the referee rules with an iron fist. Because there is a lot of space between the rules, player negotiation with the referee is expected. “I want to do this”, “ you can try, but because of x, it’s difficult”, “well, I think I’d know how to do this because of x and I’m also going to use y”, “sure, that’ll improve your odds”.
If you maintain a group, it becomes your group’s game, your group creates not just the adventure, but contributes to the system as well.

 

[transmission89]

I think the distinction is with “modern” D&D (i.e., trad and OC/neo-trad play) where there is a very large focus on playing through and experiencing a story, especially the realization of character arcs that were seeded during character creation in the case of OC/neo-trad.

It’s a style of play where killing characters is bad because it ruins the (or their) story. The GM may fudge rolls to make sure that narratively important fights carry suitable weight (killing the evil high priest in one round is “boring”). Collaboratively telling a story is more important than OSR-style “skilled play”. In fact, “skilled play” can be disruptive (which I say from experience). While OSR favors “combat as war”, this style is more “combat as sport”.

However, I haven’t seen the term used before, but I was thinking this afternoon. It seems like “combat as performance” may be more accurate. While fights may be meant to be challenging, I don’t think that’s the point. The characters are expected to win (unless the story needs otherwise), so the the challenge is artificial (or performative). The important thing is that fights respect their role in the story, which is why the GM needs to fudge to make sure a climatic encounter is suitably epic. I want to call it “combat as performance” because it brings to mind sports entertainment like professional wrestling.

Omg thank you!! Bang on what I was saying in the other thread!