log in or register to remove this ad

 

The opposite of OSR

It occurred to me after reading this post yesterday, that to some people online, AD&D 1E is the "opposite of OSR." Based on the rules sets they enjoy and the amount of griping that I remember reading online over the decades, AD&D 1E seems to have been the game opposite to what a lot of people wanted: instead of simple rules, there was a rule for everything; instead of simplifying things, it went with charts and calculations; instead of clean packaging, it went with rules spread across a thousand books and supplements.

So, that's your "opposite to the OSR." Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 1st edition.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
It occurred to me after reading this post yesterday, that to some people online, AD&D 1E is the "opposite of OSR." Based on the rules sets they enjoy and the amount of griping that I remember reading online over the decades, AD&D 1E seems to have been the game opposite to what a lot of people wanted: instead of simple rules, there was a rule for everything; instead of simplifying things, it went with charts and calculations; instead of clean packaging, it went with rules spread across a thousand books and supplements.

So, that's your "opposite to the OSR." Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 1st edition.
Only until you see Hackmaster.....
 

Quoted from Disgruntled Hobbit.

So, what do YOU think is the opposite of OSR?
Blades in the Dark, Dungeon World, Sorcerer, I mean, there are dozens of story games. They are almost exactly opposite to the classic/OSR concept of "GM builds the whole world and describes it to the players, then decides everything that happens when they do stuff" model.

I mean, GM's are important in PbtA or FitD (etc, there are other systems) but in a somewhat different way.
 

I agree with the general tenor of your post, but did want to pick up on this. I don't know anything like the full corpus of PbtA games. But at least in Apocalypse World, the basic principles for adjudication are if you do it, you do it and to do it, do it. That is to say, if you declare actions that invoke a move then the move is resolved; otherwise the conversation continues and when it's not clear who says what happens next the GM does, typically making a soft move but making a hard move if a player presents a golden opportunity to do so.

On these boards I think @Campbell has given the strongest analysis of how this gives AW a "feel" in play that is different from (say) Burning Wheel, or 4e D&D, the first of which expressly and the second at least implicitly advocates "say 'yes' or roll the dice". For instance, it makes player intention slightly less central to action resolution or at least gives it a different function: in BW, if the action and its intent don't bear upon anything that matters (as determined by PC Beliefs, Instincts and Traits) then that is the time to say 'yes'; whereas in AW, if my PC is trying to act in a dangerous situation or under pressure then I have to roll to act under fire regardless of what is at stake.

I think in this way PbtA games are slightly less different from OSR play than is (say) Burning Wheel or Prince Valiant.
Yeah, DW for instance doesn't REALLY talk about 'intent' as a specific thing. There is just a loop; the GM describes what is happening (makes a move basically) and then the players can describe what THEY do, which may also be a specific move, or just something like "we go away from here". Intent MAY factor in to the extent that thwarting it might be an element of following the GM's principles/scene framing:

GM: Your torch begins to splutter and go out, it has reached the end of its burning time (soft move).
Player: I pull out another one. This is my last equipment point.
GM: You have no more torches.
Player: I turn back and head for the surface before it burns out.
GM: You reach a junction in the tunnels that doesn't look immediately familiar to you. (another soft move).
Player: I look around, what do I see?
....
So, here the 2nd soft move is essentially responding to the character's intent, and directly putting it (and the character's survival) in doubt. Obviously if the character had pressed onwards then the GM would have simply gone on to the next move, though eventually the failing torch supply would probably snowball in an obvious way. Since there was a clear intent, making a move against it was a pretty basic PbtA GM kind of move. Still, the GM isn't obliged to make that move, she could let that ride and do something else entirely, or even just let the PC succeed in getting back to the surface, and then frame another scene that was a move against whatever the PC HAD been trying to achieve in the first place by going in the cave, again this is going to leverage on the PC's intent/consequences of failure.

Overall I think it is a lot less explicit than maybe in BW or FitD based games. OTOH it is somewhat 'baked into' how things work. While a PbtA GM can, and will, certainly just introduce entirely novel moves that are analogous to things that happen in OSR D&D (IE a monster shows up) that's sort of what you do when the players start asking what happens next, or when they run into one of your Fronts.
 

OSR be all about light mechanics and rules with DM fiat that challenges the player not the character

Don't see how there needs to be a single opposite. OSR could be at the center of a scale with a rules heavy opposite on the left and a narrative manipulation game on the right
Pathfinder on one side and something with plot points on the other. FATE?

Might even be able to have an X and a Y axis and have three or four opposites
 

So, the thing is that the OSR isn't a singular thing, its a bunch of elements that don't need to be together but are in that particular aesthetic movement. So for a point of comparison I use adventure and dungeon design stuff from OSR in PF2e, and I prefer it in PF2e than I would in OSR games-- but thats still an element of OSR games, so it feels weird to call them opposites. Aesthetic movements riff on each other so the opposite would simply have to be every setting, set to the opposite, which PF2e very much is not. For me, Pathfinder 2e is actually fairly close to the OSR, or at least some versions of it, in the ways that the OSR appeals to me.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

But obviously, I'd have to argue that Baseball is probably pretty close to the opposite of the OSR, low lethality, directly competitive instead of indirectly so, there's strict procedures that govern what the players are allowed to do (e.g. when the pitcher is allowed to throw at the batter, and where they're allowed to throw) as opposed to Gygaxian skilled play, it has rules not rulings, sudden combat is a pretty universally accepted part of the game rather than a fail state, it makes a large amount of money, and it has players of color.

(the last thing was a joke about the OSR's reputation, there's nothing about the style of play that rejects inclusivity, only some bad people who tried to make it their haven, please don't take it seriously.)

OTOH, both Baseball and the OSR have a surprising number of cults.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ok so obviously the baseball thing was a joke, but now that I think about it... in some ways the OSR is like someone looked at old baseball rules and decided to go back to it, where a spitball is considered part of a player's skill.
 
Last edited:

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top