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

[Umbran]

I don't know. I can see the attraction sometimes of a lack of codification, especially as a DM.

Sure, but that alone is insufficient to explain the phenomenon. There are games out there (FATE, for example) that work without codification so much more smoothly than any version of D&D has.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure, but that alone is insufficient to explain the phenomenon. There are games out there (FATE, for example) that work without codification so much more smoothly than any version of D&D has.

What phenomenon are we attempting to explain? The existence of the OSR?

 

[sheadunne]

Sure, but that alone is insufficient to explain the phenomenon. There are games out there (FATE, for example) that work without codification so much more smoothly than any version of D&D has.

D&D has never been the "best" game. It has always been a mess. It was simply the first game and the biggest.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't know. I can see the attraction sometimes of a lack of codification, especially as a DM. You come up with a concept, think of a resolution method that roughly models it, and drop it in the game. And as a player, too, the freedom of knowing that what you want to attempt won't be in the rules somewhere and can thus simply be attempted and adjudicated seems nice.

I can see that. But, as [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] said, I don't think that's really what OSR is about. If anything, the d20 system facilitates that kind of play (though plenty of rules bloat has accompanied it over time, to be sure).

But while being imaginative is fun, it isn't a game,

Actually, it is. Playing make-believe, whether you call it an rpg or not, is a game. Games don't have to be competitive or even have well-defined rules. That in mind, I rather agree with some of the author's sentiment that trying to push restrictive rules on a freeform experience is an inherent conflict. I just don't think that WotC invented it. The odd marriage of improvisational storytelling and competitive wargaming has been there from the start.

Thus, I am in agreement with others who posted in this thread that D&D is probably not the solution to the problem being posited, regardless of edition.

Where I don't get his perspective is in framing that argument as old school v new school. IME, the older players are the wargamers, while the younger ones are typically in it for the story. Miniatures and battlegrids, experience points and keeping score, dungeons and trasure-hunting, competitive and antagonistic play, those are all oldster things in my book. The evolution of D&D (up until 4e and maybe late 3e) was towards storytelling and world simulation and away from wargaming. So again, I don't get old-schoolers.

 

[TwoSix]

Actually, it is. Playing make-believe, whether you call it an rpg or not, is a game. Games don't have to be competitive or even have well-defined rules.

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. Feel free to dig up dictionary definitions or Wikipedia articles to prolong the pointless semantic debate if you feel it will be fun, though.

Your more salient point is about the inherent conflict between freeform storytelling and restrictive rules. I've seen many OSRers who have stated that in their games, the story is simply the result of play, and that it's the ability of the DM to act as a universal process simulator that really drives their enjoyment. You can try to do anything, the DM tells you what dice to roll, and you all laugh about what happens seems to me to be the core play conceit of the OSR.

 

[Umbran]

That in mind, I rather agree with some of the author's sentiment that trying to push restrictive rules on a freeform experience is an inherent conflict. I just don't think that WotC invented it. The odd marriage of improvisational storytelling and competitive wargaming has been there from the start.

That's a major point. The progenitor of D&D was Chainmail - which was a minis wargame. D&D was originally an outgrowth of such wargames, which are in no way, shape, or form rules-light, freeform experiences. If D&D was originally open to a lot of freeform play, that didn't arise from well-considered design acumen - RPG design didn't exist yet, as it hadn't been done before. Early D&D was open to it simply because nobody had ever written lots of rules for it - there were gaps, and GMs had to fill in those gaps themselves.

I think 1e (clones of which are, to my understanding the most popular things in the OSR) was already a step away from that vaunted freeform play. So, blaming it on 3e seems to be a bit askew from history.

 

[Umbran]

... it's the ability of the DM to act as a universal process simulator that really drives their enjoyment. You can try to do anything, the DM tells you what dice to roll, and you all laugh about what happens seems to me to be the core play conceit of the OSR.

If what's desired is a universal process simulator, why do people how much of that is in the rules, and how much of it is in the GM? It shouldn't matter which, should it? So long as the process gets run, preferably in a semi-predictable manner, that should be fine, shouldn't it? Why are the more comprehensive 3e and 4e less desirable, with the end result is still, "you can try anything, and the DM tells you what dice to roll"?

 

[TwoSix]

If what's desired is a universal process simulator, why do people how much of that is in the rules, and how much of it is in the GM? It shouldn't matter which, should it? So long as the process gets run, preferably in a semi-predictable manner, that should be fine, shouldn't it? Why are the more comprehensive 3e and 4e less desirable, with the end result is still, "you can try anything, and the DM tells you what dice to roll"?

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.

 

[sheadunne]

Personally, I think it's the desire for players to not have to concern themselves with rules. Only one person at the table has to concern themselves with the rules of the game, everyone else just says what they're doing and then rolls whatever dice they're told to roll. It's a nice break from the "everyone knows the rules" 3e and 4e game.

It's like after having everyone at the table learn the rules, you suddenly decide you liked it better when you were the only one at the table who knew the rules.

I can appreciate that sentiment, but I don't think it what was actually happen at tables back in the 80s. From my own experience, we all knew the rules, they were a mess, we agreed on house rules and then played the game. This mythical DM says what to roll just didn't really happen at the tables I played on. We all owned all the books. We all decided on house rules. We all played the same game together.

I could capture the same feeling picking up any game that my friends haven't played before and running a game for them.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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. Feel free to dig up dictionary definitions or Wikipedia articles to prolong the pointless semantic debate if you feel it will be fun, though.

Here's a good example of a game without rules:

Why are the more comprehensive 3e and 4e less desirable, with the end result is still, "you can try anything, and the DM tells you what dice to roll"?

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.