OSR "Rules & Regulations": An Essay on the OSR

[TwoSix]

Here's a good example of a game without rules:
View attachment 57396

Heh. Calvinball was actually the first thing I thought of as a rejoinder to my own point. I'd argue that it isn't a "game" either, though.

That's pretty much what I'm saying. The qualities of the rules (clarity, simplicity, balance, etc.) are one thing. How you use them is quite another. There's nothing wrong with the style of play the author is advocating, but I don't think that OSR rules are necessary or even particularly helpful in achieving it.

That may even be true, but doesn't that lead us to decide that the people involved in the OSR are wasting their time, and could achieve better results in another manner? That the OSR is simply some sort of nostalgia-driven mass hysteria?

 

[Ahnehnois]

That may even be true, but doesn't that lead us to decide that the people involved in the OSR are wasting their time, and could achieve better results in another manner?

Yeah.

That the OSR is simply some sort of nostalgia-driven mass hysteria?

Not necessarily. If you're into OSR because "feats from Magic the Gathering killed roleplaying" (loosely paraphrasing), that I think is hard to justify rationally. But if it is pure nostalgia and is admitted as such, it's not hysteria. There's nothing wrong with wanting to relive good times. And I'm sure the OSR games do have objective merits as well, if perhaps not being the rules-lite paradise of true roleplayers the article suggests.

 

[pemerton]

For the copyright thing, he's actually pretty accurate.

He's not at all accurate. I have copies of each of the games I mentioned. And each is published under the OGL - which is a contractual licence permitting the use of WotC IP (namely, the SRD).

Just because those games use the OGL doesn't mean that they're using WotC IP.

Have a look at the section 15 statement for each of those games. Each opens by mentioned some iteration or other of the SRD, which is a piece of WotC IP.

The OGL transcends the SRD, which was more of a d20STL concern than an OGL concern.

The SRD is not in any interesting sense a d20STL concern - that regulated the use of certain WotC-owned trade dress, like the "d20" logo. The OGL transcends the SRD in the sense that other IP owners might release their own IP under the same licence. But in the case of each of the games I mentioned (plus Swords & Wizardry, which I've just checked), and I would be prepared to bet any other retro-clones I haven't mentioned, each is released under the OGL and identifies the SRD as the first item in it section 15 statement.

Which is to say, the blogger is wrong, and has misidentified the legal underpinning for these works - it is not copyright law but contract law.

 

[pemerton]

I think the author needs to acquire a more broad view of the gaming world before attempting to address this kind of question. He keeps his discussion firmly on D&D rules, ignoring that there are now several other rule sets out there that may well support some of the play style elements his talking about better than D&D ever did

There are games out there (FATE, for example) that work without codification so much more smoothly than any version of D&D has.

I agree that the blog does not demonstrate much knowledge of the range of contemporary RPG systems.

I can't claim to really understand the OSR, but I believe that [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] is correct that the idea of having a neutral referee aribtrate action resolution is fairly key. This spares players having to engage directly with the metagame. And it avoids having to codify non-process-sim resuts-oriented action resolution in the way that 4e, Marvel Heroic, HeroWars/Quest, and (I assume based on limited knowledge) FATE all do.

Obviously relying on neutral arbitration also has its potential flaws, which are well known and debated on these boards!

 

[Balesir]

I would argue that to be a "game", the activity would require some sort of strategic thinking. I don't really put storytelling or imaginative play in the "game" category, or a footrace for that matter.

I agree with your view that "games" require some sort of strategic thinking, but I think that DM-arbitrated games can involve this. Instead of playing the opposition via the rules, you just play the DM, by which I mean you use your social perception and persuasion skills to lead the DM to agree that what you want your character to do is "reasonable", while what others (including the DM) want their characters to do is "unrealistic". In other words, you try to divine how the DM thinks or wants the game/real world to work, and then you either parse your in-game intentions to fit that model or use persuasion and influence to modify the DM's model into something you can use more easily.

I have seen this done many times, and I recognise it pretty readily these days. I don't like it at all, personally, but I can see that some do, and they would logically be attracted to "DM arbitration" games as a result. Of course, not all folks who like DM arbitration play this sort of "game" - some don't really play RPGs to "game" at all. I can see the attraction of that, but I find that the drivers to competition need to be way down or one or two folks can't resist a bit of "play the DM" - which I notice and get annoyed about. Hence, for me to enjoy pure sim/immersive stuff things like xp, levels, "character development" (in the specific sense of expected character improvement) and treasure hunting need to be marginalised or removed as elements of in-game power determination.

 

[TwoSix]

I agree with your view that "games" require some sort of strategic thinking, but I think that DM-arbitrated games can involve this. Instead of playing the opposition via the rules, you just play the DM, by which I mean you use your social perception and persuasion skills to lead the DM to agree that what you want your character to do is "reasonable", while what others (including the DM) want their characters to do is "unrealistic". In other words, you try to divine how the DM thinks or wants the game/real world to work, and then you either parse your in-game intentions to fit that model or use persuasion and influence to modify the DM's model into something you can use more easily.

Oh no, I agree totally as well. Social strategizing is still strategizing, certainly. (Diplomacy is most definitely a game!) When I say "storytelling" or "imaginative play", I'm talking about ghost stories and cops and robbers (or Calvinball!), not OD&D.

 

[DMKastmaria]

Which is to say, the blogger is wrong, and has misidentified the legal underpinning for these works - it is not copyright law but contract law.

OSRIC relied on both copyright and contract law. Those interested can read the introduction in the freely available PDF.

 

[Umbran]

Because I don't think it's a desire for a universal process simulator, it's specifically the desire to have a person be the arbiter. I think it's a desire to speak naturally rather than in rules terms that drives the preference.

Well, that's changing things slightly. I strongly note that "human as arbiter" and "speaking naturally' are not the same thing.

If a human is the arbiter, then the resolution of action depends upon their judgement - maybe they'll apply a written rule, or maybe they'll make something up. That arbiter gets to choose.

Contrast this with human as a translator - you speak naturally to the person, who translates your desire into rules-language, and then applies the written rule, rather than their own judgement to resolve the action.

So, which is the important bit - speaking naturally, or having more human judgement in the action resolution?

 

[Umbran]

...non-process-sim resuts-oriented action resolution...

Oh, the irony! We are using a pile of jargon to discuss game preference based upon not wanting to use a pile of game jargon!

 

[Umbran]

That may even be true, but doesn't that lead us to decide that the people involved in the OSR are wasting their time, and could achieve better results in another manner? That the OSR is simply some sort of nostalgia-driven mass hysteria?

Well, this is why I think that the whole, "lack of structured rules for everything", is not the whole story. I think there's *more* to the OSR desires than just that. Thus my "insufficient to describe the phenomenon". There may be better ways to reach that particular goal, but maybe not better ways to reach a combination of goals.

Also, remember that we are talking about pretending to be elves - a hobby game purely for enjoyment. There is no objective value in the reasons for one's preferences - even if it is a nostalgia-driven thing (And while I'd expect a dose of nostalgia, I think there's more than that, too), so what? It is all for harmless fun, after all. It isn't as if liking a game for nostalgic reasons makes someone a lesser person, or less of a cool gamer, or something. If it gives them joy, well, then they've found some of their joy. If anyone's going to besmirch them for that, I'm calling sour grapes for someone else's happiness.