Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Libramarian" data-source="post: 6123537" data-attributes="member: 6688858">I see the OSR playstyle as providing an alternative way to create and maintain a healthy metagame (player buy-in) that doesn't require&nbsp; player-GM dramatic/thematic coordination. It's able to do this because&nbsp; the metagame emotional palette it's going for is simpler (fiero, fear, suspense,&nbsp; creepiness, relief, glee) and more universal, so the game can handle more of&nbsp; the prep on the back-end (random and semi-random content generation) rather than the front&nbsp; end (the GM and players framing scenes relevant to this particular&nbsp; game). So in a sense it's your perfect world scenario...if your perfect world is one in which the PCs are mostly concerned with getting more powerful and not dying, and the world looks like it's been designed to make for a fun game (loaded with adventure areas helpfully divided into different levels of risk+reward).Yeah OSR GMing seems almost criminally lazy compared to your description here. Like how you said that a 4e GM doesn't need to &quot;manage the game&quot; so they&nbsp; can focus on &quot;managing the experience&quot;--I want to say an OSR GM doesn't have to do either of those things. And they get complete, unilateral control over&nbsp; the setting (within the bounds of the kind of setting that works well with OSR gameplay). It's pretty cushy GMing: more about knowing what not to do, than what to do (developing a minimalist aesthetic).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Libramarian, post: 6123537, member: 6688858"] I see the OSR playstyle as providing an alternative way to create and maintain a healthy metagame (player buy-in) that doesn't require player-GM dramatic/thematic coordination. It's able to do this because the metagame emotional palette it's going for is simpler (fiero, fear, suspense, creepiness, relief, glee) and more universal, so the game can handle more of the prep on the back-end (random and semi-random content generation) rather than the front end (the GM and players framing scenes relevant to this particular game). So in a sense it's your perfect world scenario...if your perfect world is one in which the PCs are mostly concerned with getting more powerful and not dying, and the world looks like it's been designed to make for a fun game (loaded with adventure areas helpfully divided into different levels of risk+reward). Yeah OSR GMing seems almost criminally lazy compared to your description here. Like how you said that a 4e GM doesn't need to "manage the game" so they can focus on "managing the experience"--I want to say an OSR GM doesn't have to do [I]either[/I] of those things. And they get complete, unilateral control over the setting (within the bounds of the kind of setting that works well with OSR gameplay). It's pretty cushy GMing: more about knowing what not to do, than what to do (developing a minimalist aesthetic). [/QUOTE]

Verification