The opposite of OSR

[Parmandur]

Burning Wheel!

Agreed, room for both, though.

 

[Parmandur]

I've never understood the claims about earlier D&D being "rules light". Good grief. You have to take how many steps to determine whether an attack hit or not in AD&D? Something about fifteen if you actually do the steps and don't ignore them. How in the world can a game which actually details the exact space you require to swing a sword possibly be considered "rules light"?

My understanding is that most people ignored many of the steps, or internalized them. Also, people mean OD&D or BD&D when they talk OSR, not AD&D, I reckon.

 

[Parmandur]

What a question!

It definitely depends. I mean there are folks that say when a PC can define things in the world or setting, like some FATE games do.

Or like others, when there are rules for everything. Or rules for what your character CAN do but also if they don't have those features they CAN'T do them.

Or a hyper focused rule set on a particular style of play.

Or a combination of the above.

Wikipedia has this in it for what OSR is, in a nutshell.

So the opposite of that would be: A complete set of rules as possible, or a set of rules meant to cover every situation even if they are light and very abstract. A game where the DM doesn't have to decide or arbitrate things during the game, the results are plain from the play following the rules. Game balance between players would be enforced by the rules. Player skill or ingenuity would not be required and in fact may be against the rules. Skill with the rules of the GAME is most important.

But I don't think that makes much sense? Just an opposite stating of that previous OSR style?

So, the Dungeons & Dragons Adventure board game line?

 

[Aldarc]

You literally quoted the section from the rules that says the GM gets the final word in adjudication. That's the definition of a trad game.

It would be erroneous to equate "the final word" with "the only word" in matters of adjudication of either the fiction or the rules as you do here.

 

[Dyson Logos]

I've never understood the claims about earlier D&D being "rules light". Good grief. You have to take how many steps to determine whether an attack hit or not in AD&D? Something about fifteen if you actually do the steps and don't ignore them. How in the world can a game which actually details the exact space you require to swing a sword possibly be considered "rules light"?

Generally speaking, most don't claim AD&D as being rules light. The core of most modern OSR games is B/X D&D - where everything for the game from levels 1-14 including all player-facing options as well as monsters, treasure, campaign and adventure advice, etc, all fits in 128 pages.

 

[Yora]

What you have even in AD&D is that the combat procedures are pretty straightforward without too many bells and whistles. You got your melee attack rolls and your ranged attack rolls, and that's mostly it as the combat system is concerned. You're dead at 0 hp, there's no skill checks, no feats, and no class abilities to use in combat.
That is all fairly light compared to 3rd edition.

 

[Reynard]

It would be erroneous to equate "the final word" with "the only word" in matters of adjudication of either the fiction or the rules as you do here.

I am honestly surprised anyone can play Dresden Files and think "that's a rules light narrative game." If Fate is a narrative game, then so is Genesys, which is a position I don't think any would argue for. The game mechanics explicitly allowing players to invent tags or establish facts usin% metacurrency isn't enough. Fate still has a GM with the power of "No" (even if the GM is discouraged from exercising that power), and if the players have to ask permission, the game falls under the traditional umbrella.

 

[Umbran]

I am honestly surprised anyone can play Dresden Files and think "that's a rules light narrative game." If Fate is a narrative game, then so is Genesys, which is a position I don't think any would argue for. The game mechanics explicitly allowing players to invent tags or establish facts usin% metacurrency isn't enough. Fate still has a GM with the power of "No" (even if the GM is discouraged from exercising that power), and if the players have to ask permission, the game falls under the traditional umbrella.

The internet drives discussion to poles, with apparently no middle ground.

I reject the implication that "narrative game" is digital - it is or it isn't, all or nothing - and that the fact that a GM can say no suddenly entirely eliminates narrative play from a game. I think that's a vast overstatement of the case in practical play, and not constructive to discussion.

Are there games that are less narrative than Fate? Certainly. Are there games that are more focused on narrative play? Sure.

Are you going to be open to nuance and spectrum, here, or are you just going to stand ground that Fate is not a narrative game? Let us know now, please, so we can judge whether to bother to engage further.

 

[Aldarc]

I am honestly surprised anyone can play Dresden Files and think "that's a rules light narrative game." If Fate is a narrative game, then so is Genesys, which is a position I don't think any would argue for. The game mechanics explicitly allowing players to invent tags or establish facts usin% metacurrency isn't enough. Fate still has a GM with the power of "No" (even if the GM is discouraged from exercising that power), and if the players have to ask permission, the game falls under the traditional umbrella.

I’m honestly surprised that your better judgment thought it was a good idea to put words and arguments into my mouth that I didn’t say and then follow it up with an absurd hardline assertion that Fate only qualifies as a narrative game if Genesys does? I'm honestly surprised that you think that a GM having the ability to say "no" somehow disproves Fate as being a narrative game.

 

[Reynard]

I’m honestly surprised that your better judgment thought it was a good idea to put words and arguments into my mouth that I didn’t say and then follow it up with an absurd hardline assertion that Fate only qualifies as a narrative game if Genesys does? I'm honestly surprised that you think that a GM having the ability to say "no" somehow disproves Fate as being a narrative game.

The prior assertions were that Fate was a narrative game with a strong a implication that it was also rules lite based on the subject of the thread. I offered Dresden Files as a counterpoint. I'm not sure what's surprising about that.

In addition, it was explicitly stated that what divided traditional from narrative games was the capacity for the player to state a fact and the GM not having any ability to mitigate that. By its own rules, Fate explicitly does not work that way, which I pointed out. I'm not sure what's surprising about that.

That players get to narrate some stuff that happens in the game can't be the definition of a "narrative game" because literally every RPG ever explicitly allows players to narrate stuff. So it has to be something else. Fate has systemetized the process but it still isn't anything different than what has happened in every D&D game ever since 1974.

Player: I fire a flaming arrow at the hay piles the bandits are hiding behind in the stables so they catch fire.
DM: Roll to hit. [Success] Okay, the hay catches fire and now there's smoke and flame everywhere.
Player: Great. [To other players] Let's use the smoke for cover to get out of here!

That is literally no different than Fate's "create advantage." There just weren't words for it in 1974.