OSR Pirate Borg - Math Thoughts

[Scribe]

Whats the adventure?

 

[Retreater]

Whats the adventure?

Spoiler: Hidden to not give away the ending

Terror in Tortuga

 

[Retreater]

Yeah thats the thing in many OSR (and the borg are especially minimalist) it assumes the people have this "common knowledge". Thats how they can be so slim, because they leave stuff away which most OSR players know.

The idea is "it does not need to be stated because thats just how you play (OSR) RPGs" it kind of assumes everyone knows some really old D&D version and how people played.

I know this is the theme for many OSR games. I just think it's a disservice to the games, the GMs, and the groups playing them.

Let's consider this...

• The game was a promotional adventure for Free RPG Day, where the company is attempting to entice GMs with little prep time, new groups, and trying to get them to try a non-D&D game for the first time.
• My copy of Pirate Borg itself is the "Starter Set." From its description "Designed for both brand new and experienced TTRPG players and GMs" (bolding my own). It even comes with a set of polyhedron dice because this might be your first TTRPG.
• "Rules lite" games ought to appeal to new players and GMs. Those who need the advice to make these types of games to work.
• B/X D&D, the basis of most of the OSR, was designed for "ages 10 and up" and new players. In 1981. People who had never heard of an RPG.

I'm all for having lite mechanics, but it's vital that the mechanics you put in the game work and create the desired outcome. If you don't expect people to interact with HP and attack rolls, then you need to put in something like "here are some options to defeat the bad guy" especially in a starter promotional adventure designed for new GMs.

 

[timbannock]

Has anyone else run into this issue? Any ideas of how to address it?

Yes, when I was a younger GM, I ran into this often. Back in my AD&D 2e days, and early 3e days.

One of my first fixes was going back to B/X and/or moving to NuSR games like Shadowdark and the like that have Morale ratings. That's definitely a useful thing, along with reaction rolls, that help lower the number of sloggy combats (Morale) and help tell a story (Reaction).

But the bigger fix, that kind of works outside of system to a degree -- but also leans heavily into system, because it's where a lot of design happens for the GM side of things -- is making combats that are both about more than just HP = 0 win conditions, as well as putting more stuff to interact with into combats.

Win-conditions other than HP degradation is a great way to change things up. Nimble and even the 5e 2024 DMG have surprisingly good sections on this. I also look to Final Fantasy Tactics. There's encounters where it's literally "reach the NPC first" or "disarm the boss villain" and then the encounter's done. No need to play out every minion's HP or attack rolls. I don't do this every fight, but I do try to have at least one encounter each session planned to have a win-condition other than "defeat all enemies" because that's a great pacing mechanic.

As far as "stuff", I find all math discussions like this fail to account for what makes fantasy combat interesting: the ability to think outside the box. If your fights are on a flat, featureless plain, of course the math is going to suck and the fight's a slog. What you want to do is put stuff in that's superior to any given character's individual ability to pump out damage, affect an area, or slow (or force) movement. That's what makes a fight dynamic. Indiana Jones doesn't fight a Nazi, he fights a Nazi on a plane that's precariously wheeling around a runway filled with gasoline drums. Those exploding drums could take out a bunch of badguys at once...but they could also ignite the plane's severed fuel line, killing Indy just as easily. In D&D games, a statue isn't just set dressing, it's a thing you can topple onto a line of enemies, or kick over and roll at a group of them to knock them prone, or crush them, or create new areas of cover. I generally seed between 1 and 3 things in every encounter that are temporary or one-use things that can dramatically increase damage output, area of effect, or make movement highly desirable or very limited. Then, I try to come up with at least one situation, or use a player's creative use of the setting to come up with a situation: a situation being an event that dramatically changes the nature of the encounter area itself, like a fire spreading, or significant areas becoming difficult or dangerous terrain, or a pit that people can be thrown into, etc.

Putting both concepts together: Indy doesn't just fight a magical cultist, he fights a magical cultist while dangling on a collapsed rope bridge over a 100 foot gorge in order to snag a magical artifact. If he gets the artifact, you could rule the fight's over. Or if he never does and the fight's gonna take awhile, well, someone's eventually going to fail their "hold onto the remains of the rope bridge" save, or they are gonna run out of HP...but that's two possible fail-points instead of just crossing off HP, so the chances of it happening sooner and being highly dramatic is much, much greater.

So...now you just want to set that rope bridge on fire.

(Indy's lucky I'm not his GM.)

TL;DR:

• Always use Reaction (might negate a fight in the first place).
• Always use Morale (shortens some -- but not all! -- fights).
• At least once per session or once every few sessions, use alternative win-conditions (have the fight end as soon as a dramatic event occurs, regardless of monster's HP).
• Always use at least 1-3 dramatic tactical elements (stuff and/or events that significantly change damage output, area of effect, and/or the nature of the environment).

 

[conankeep]

• "Designed for both brand new and experienced TTRPG players and GMs"
• "Rules lite" games ought to appeal to new players and GMs.
• B/X D&D, the basis of most of the OSR, was designed for "ages 10 and up" and new players

In my experience new player and especially kids need the least help getting into OSR playstyle =)

it's vital that the mechanics you put in the game work and create the desired outcome. If you don't expect people to interact with HP and attack rolls, then you need to put in something like "here are some options to defeat the bad guy"

But they did. Well almost. The mechanics should have made it clear that just rolling the boss to death would be a chore. I recon that wasn't the first enemy in the adventure? Well here you go. I mean the adventure didn't tell you explicitly, but the hint is frankly hard to miss.

"here are some options to defeat the bad guy"

what's the fun in that?

 

[Tigris]

I know this is the theme for many OSR games. I just think it's a disservice to the games, the GMs, and the groups playing them.

Let's consider this...

• The game was a promotional adventure for Free RPG Day, where the company is attempting to entice GMs with little prep time, new groups, and trying to get them to try a non-D&D game for the first time.
• My copy of Pirate Borg itself is the "Starter Set." From its description "Designed for both brand new and experienced TTRPG players and GMs" (bolding my own). It even comes with a set of polyhedron dice because this might be your first TTRPG.
• "Rules lite" games ought to appeal to new players and GMs. Those who need the advice to make these types of games to work.
• B/X D&D, the basis of most of the OSR, was designed for "ages 10 and up" and new players. In 1981. People who had never heard of an RPG.

I'm all for having lite mechanics, but it's vital that the mechanics you put in the game work and create the desired outcome. If you don't expect people to interact with HP and attack rolls, then you need to put in something like "here are some options to defeat the bad guy" especially in a starter promotional adventure designed for new GMs.

I am fully with you. I do think these kind of games and products are not well made and only work with people who know these kind of games before. And the "brand new TTRPG players and GMs" is just marketing speak. I think new players, especially kids who dont have experience with actual games and just play/fantasy together with an experienced GM can work well, because they just tell whatever and the GM just kills them off (or is nice to them).


Also in 1981 I think this did not work too well without introduction articles etc. again marketing speach and people were there not yet used to modern/good games so they just made it work somehow.

In my experience new player and especially kids need the least help getting into OSR playstyle =)

But they did. Well almost. The mechanics should have made it clear that just rolling the boss to death would be a chore. I recon that wasn't the first enemy in the adventure? Well here you go. I mean the adventure didn't tell you explicitly, but the hint is frankly hard to miss.

Sorry but no this is the same as "hints" in flirting, which according to studies less than 25% of the time people remark. It only looks obvious to the one giving it/ knowing it.

We have actual words, its not that hard to write "This game uses party game mechanics for things which are not covered by the rules, similar to Cards against humanity. People can make up things they want to do and the GM is the judge to decide if they like it or not, if they like it it works."

what's the fun in that?

Well the fun is that its actual tactical play, you know the kind which is enjoyed by WAY many people than enjoying RPG. The kind of gameplay present in computer games and boardgames which are more often played.

 

[conankeep]

People can make up things they want to do and the GM is the judge to decide if they like it or not, if they like it it works

You are saying it like it's a bad thing. That's literally what TTRPGs are though.

party game mechanics for things which are not covered by the rules

That's not "party games mechanics". Coming up with things to do, which weren't laid out before you as pre-made options, and then having a referee pass a decision on what are the consequences is the essence of TTRPG, and I would argue it is the reason to choose TTRPGs over videogames or boardgames.

 

[Tigris]

You are saying it like it's a bad thing. That's literally what TTRPGs are though.

No its not. This is just a small subset of RPGs played like this by a subset of GMs.

There is absolutely no need for GM is god, there are GM less RPGs, solo RPGs, RPGs with limited GM might, RPGs which try to be simulations with mechanics etc.

That's not "party games mechanics". Coming up with things to do, which weren't laid out before you as pre-made options, and then having a referee pass a decision on what are the consequences is the essence of TTRPG, and I would argue it is the reason to choose TTRPGs over videogames or boardgames.

Of course this is a party game mechanic, this is "player judge": https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2865/player-judge pretty much the nr 1 party game mechanic.

Having 1 person thinking they are special is definitly not why I play RPG its a sad sideeffect I have to live with, with most GMs, but definitly not the reason I play RPGs.

In ideal GM for me just is a machine playing the premade adventure as good as possible, with player fun as their nr 1 priority, and with the main job of playing monsters and speaking NPCs (according to what the premade adventure tells what the main message is).

And if the GM has to improvise, because players do something outside the adventure, then the Players always have a veto and can overrule the GM if the majority of them does not like a GM decision.

I play RPGs to live stories together with my friends as equals, for sure not to humor elitism of some people.

 

[Retreater]

That's not "party games mechanics". Coming up with things to do, which weren't laid out before you as pre-made options, and then having a referee pass a decision on what are the consequences is the essence of TTRPG, and I would argue it is the reason to choose TTRPGs over videogames or boardgames.

I mean, yeah. Absolutely. A GM needs to be able to make adjudications on the fly to handle unforeseen issues that could arise.
For example, "I'm on a flying carpet, using a magical lance, flying through a tornado, trying to dodge swirling cows." Yeah, that's stuff that a rulebook probably won't detail.
But enemy Morale being so high that it's mostly unstoppable? Having an enemy's HP so high that it takes 30+ actions to drop them? Those are not unforeseen issues. Those are commonplace situations that literally came up in a group's first session playing an adventure using the Starter Set rules.
If a game wants to say "We don't care about combat" - great. There's design space for games that focus on exploration without fighting. (For example, Wanderhome.)
But when OSR games give you pages about combat, entire chapters of monsters with stat blocks, that's clearly not what their purpose is. Yet, the mantra we keep hearing is "you shouldn't fight in OSR games." My friend, that is what the majority of your book covers.
Are they bad game designers? Do they not test it? Are they beholden to be compatible with previous bad game design?
Because - if we're being honest - I think most of us can agree that 30+ actions to drop a single foe in a "rules-lite" game is bad game design.

 

[Scribe]

But when OSR games give you pages about combat, entire chapters of monsters with stat blocks, that's clearly not what their purpose is. Yet, the mantra we keep hearing is "you shouldn't fight in OSR games." My friend, that is what the majority of your book covers.
Are they bad game designers? Do they not test it? Are they beholden to be compatible with previous bad game design?
Because - if we're being honest - I think most of us can agree that 30+ actions to drop a single foe in a "rules-lite" game is bad game design.

Neither *borg or SD books in their majority about combat though? I mean the *borg rules in particular are so limited you could fit them on a double sided 8x11 sheet of paper, less I'm sure.

30+ actions, 3 players, 10 rounds of combat? I mean honestly I would have expected the Monster to kill them all by that point. What was the average damage being done by the players?

It just seems a weird scenario honestly. Either kill em, or get killed, is more my experience.