Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What Has Caused the OSR Revival?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7378416" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I think that there is something to be said for content that doesn't attach so much fluff to it that it becomes constraining on how you use it. As a DM that has always run a homebrew setting, if your content forces too much of an intrusion into my setting by way of explicitly stated culture or widespread effects on the setting, then your content is not very useful to me however much I might admire your imagination or setting. </p><p></p><p>But, a lot of the 'old school' content like the Monster Manual or the Deities & Demigods was basically just stat blocks and numbers and various sorts of crunch that left it entirely up to you what to do with it and to determine what, if anything, it meant to your setting. And a lot of people faulted it for that and said, "You know the fluff is more important than the crunch", and I can partly understand that sentiment and a lot of gaming history since that time has been trying to provide fluffier versions with a more imaginative defined setting. But incidentally, also a more rigidly defined and inflexible setting.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Oh good, because that would be false.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would argue that that is a very romanticized and unrealistic view of what happened back in the day. Back in the day, since the expectation was that players would be highly proactive, the expectation was that the DM would basically inform them of nothing, and that anything the player learned they would have to learn through play. So the DM would not say, "Hey, no you can research how to make potions.", and in point of fact (and to be honest I still DM this way), if the player asked me, "How can I make a potion?", if the character didn't have any preexisting knowledge that would point them in the right direction I'd tell them, "You don't know.", just as I would tell them today. They'd then have to search out someone that knew how to make potions and learn how it was done. But in point of fact, in the 1e era very few players would do that, because it would quickly become onerous. </p><p></p><p>The 1e system, since it was totally in the head of the individual DM, basically meant that the answer was, "No." And the system as written encouraged the DM to put as many hurdles in the way of that request as possible. Let's face it, Gygax's tone when it is involved with the acquisition of magic is downright adversarial. Put a road block up at every point along the way and make them jump an arbitrary hurdle. Even after the recipe is acquired by long labor, the DM still will say something like, "Ok, your potion requires fresh displacer beast liver which can't be more than a day old.", and the PC will be like, "Ok, how do I get one of those?", and the DM will be like, "Your character doesn't know that."</p><p></p><p>Now, there are two important things to note that I think you overlook. First, the 1e system here is just as burdensome if not more so to the DM than it is to the player. He has to invent all this crap and some how balance it so that it's not impossible but not game breaking either. That's not an insignificant burden. That's a headache. That's actually probably beyond most novice and some experienced DM's abilities. Now imagine how much the game changes if TSR publishes a new source book that lists out all the recipes for all the potions and spell inks in the game. Suddenly, all this new content empowers both the DM and the player to accomplish something that otherwise was probably too hard.</p><p></p><p>And the other thing to note is that if the DM actually goes and on his own initiative does that, because there is all these hints in the DMG that he needs to do that that inspire him, then again the extantiation of that changes the game completely. Suddenly, all this difficult headache enducing content becomes something the DM wants to share and tell the players about and he's not pushed, required or even desirous of passively aggressively denying those requests because there is this content out there that makes it easy to answer those questions and because after that labor he wants to share the system. That changes the game, but fundamentally his house rules are at that point no different than a supplement or a dragon article that pushes the table in a new unimagined direction. The thing is though, most DMs can't do the house rule version of that on their own.</p><p></p><p>I'd been gaming like 10 years and I'd done some stuff 'at sea' in ships, but none of that had ever had any depth; until my DM at the time read a newly published Dragon Magazine article about ships and sailing and it inspired him to add depth to that previously unconsidered portion of the game. We could have done that without the dragon article. Both of us have the skills in one way or the other. He's a great researcher and I'm a pretty decent rules smith. But until that push came along, we had nothing to cause us to turn our attention to that. It turned out that the rules in the Dragon Magazine article were in many ways terrible and had never been playtested and we probably more thoroughly tested them to prove that than any table in the country, and I ended up smithing out dozens of pages of rules to fix or extend what was in the Magazine. But I would have never done any of that without some push in that direction.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You keep using 'OSR' as a synonym for 'old school', and it's confusing me. But if you mean that they fall into the category of things that turned up in old school play, no they don't. I mean, there might have been a table out there that did something like that since it literally isn't forbidden, but because of the huge barrier to even imagining that much less implementing it, effectively it was forbidden and most DMs would have shut it down hard by allowing players to do it, but given no satisfactory reward for doing so. Most would have just said "No" no matter how creative they were or how willing they were to offer up rulings, because they would have feared it was some sort of game breaking or power gaming sort of request. So in short no, it wasn't then and isn't now a part of the game. It's not even really a part of my game, because although I am 600+ pages into writing house rules, that part of my game world hasn't been fleshed out enough for the players to really get inspired enough to pursue it. They don't know how cool it is to be a wizard because I haven't written the wizard supplements yet. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But let's be frank, no matter how compliant the DM might be with the players rube Goldberg ingenuity with iron stakes, rope, sacks and the occasional livestock, they aren't going to invent those rules and systems for such things on their own. It's not even going to enter into their imaginations, and as such the silence of the rules effectively bans it from the game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, but that is to be frank, that's the first thing you've said that really misses the point. Because boats were implied by the game to be in the rules and boats exist in the real world setting. None of that requires a lot of conjecture on the part of anyone, although to be honest, until the DM actually made good reasons to own a boat, it never occurred to any of us that we would want to build a boat, and probably never happened that in most games ANYONE built a boat. In my game, the PC made dozens of ships-of-the line and had whole fleets of 'boats'. But that didn't happen because we were so much more creative than anyone else; it happened because we made a system for it.</p><p></p><p>Besides which, this conversation began as a discussion about player empowerment, and not DM empowerment. Which of your two examples more empowers the player?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it's quite OK. I appreciate actually honest attempts to engage in conversation, rambling or not. I can't possibly fault anyone for rambling in any fairness.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My point is that in your game, you probably didn't actually build a lot of Galleons at all. And you certainly didn't build any 50 'gun' advanced frigates.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7378416, member: 4937"] I think that there is something to be said for content that doesn't attach so much fluff to it that it becomes constraining on how you use it. As a DM that has always run a homebrew setting, if your content forces too much of an intrusion into my setting by way of explicitly stated culture or widespread effects on the setting, then your content is not very useful to me however much I might admire your imagination or setting. But, a lot of the 'old school' content like the Monster Manual or the Deities & Demigods was basically just stat blocks and numbers and various sorts of crunch that left it entirely up to you what to do with it and to determine what, if anything, it meant to your setting. And a lot of people faulted it for that and said, "You know the fluff is more important than the crunch", and I can partly understand that sentiment and a lot of gaming history since that time has been trying to provide fluffier versions with a more imaginative defined setting. But incidentally, also a more rigidly defined and inflexible setting. Oh good, because that would be false. I would argue that that is a very romanticized and unrealistic view of what happened back in the day. Back in the day, since the expectation was that players would be highly proactive, the expectation was that the DM would basically inform them of nothing, and that anything the player learned they would have to learn through play. So the DM would not say, "Hey, no you can research how to make potions.", and in point of fact (and to be honest I still DM this way), if the player asked me, "How can I make a potion?", if the character didn't have any preexisting knowledge that would point them in the right direction I'd tell them, "You don't know.", just as I would tell them today. They'd then have to search out someone that knew how to make potions and learn how it was done. But in point of fact, in the 1e era very few players would do that, because it would quickly become onerous. The 1e system, since it was totally in the head of the individual DM, basically meant that the answer was, "No." And the system as written encouraged the DM to put as many hurdles in the way of that request as possible. Let's face it, Gygax's tone when it is involved with the acquisition of magic is downright adversarial. Put a road block up at every point along the way and make them jump an arbitrary hurdle. Even after the recipe is acquired by long labor, the DM still will say something like, "Ok, your potion requires fresh displacer beast liver which can't be more than a day old.", and the PC will be like, "Ok, how do I get one of those?", and the DM will be like, "Your character doesn't know that." Now, there are two important things to note that I think you overlook. First, the 1e system here is just as burdensome if not more so to the DM than it is to the player. He has to invent all this crap and some how balance it so that it's not impossible but not game breaking either. That's not an insignificant burden. That's a headache. That's actually probably beyond most novice and some experienced DM's abilities. Now imagine how much the game changes if TSR publishes a new source book that lists out all the recipes for all the potions and spell inks in the game. Suddenly, all this new content empowers both the DM and the player to accomplish something that otherwise was probably too hard. And the other thing to note is that if the DM actually goes and on his own initiative does that, because there is all these hints in the DMG that he needs to do that that inspire him, then again the extantiation of that changes the game completely. Suddenly, all this difficult headache enducing content becomes something the DM wants to share and tell the players about and he's not pushed, required or even desirous of passively aggressively denying those requests because there is this content out there that makes it easy to answer those questions and because after that labor he wants to share the system. That changes the game, but fundamentally his house rules are at that point no different than a supplement or a dragon article that pushes the table in a new unimagined direction. The thing is though, most DMs can't do the house rule version of that on their own. I'd been gaming like 10 years and I'd done some stuff 'at sea' in ships, but none of that had ever had any depth; until my DM at the time read a newly published Dragon Magazine article about ships and sailing and it inspired him to add depth to that previously unconsidered portion of the game. We could have done that without the dragon article. Both of us have the skills in one way or the other. He's a great researcher and I'm a pretty decent rules smith. But until that push came along, we had nothing to cause us to turn our attention to that. It turned out that the rules in the Dragon Magazine article were in many ways terrible and had never been playtested and we probably more thoroughly tested them to prove that than any table in the country, and I ended up smithing out dozens of pages of rules to fix or extend what was in the Magazine. But I would have never done any of that without some push in that direction. You keep using 'OSR' as a synonym for 'old school', and it's confusing me. But if you mean that they fall into the category of things that turned up in old school play, no they don't. I mean, there might have been a table out there that did something like that since it literally isn't forbidden, but because of the huge barrier to even imagining that much less implementing it, effectively it was forbidden and most DMs would have shut it down hard by allowing players to do it, but given no satisfactory reward for doing so. Most would have just said "No" no matter how creative they were or how willing they were to offer up rulings, because they would have feared it was some sort of game breaking or power gaming sort of request. So in short no, it wasn't then and isn't now a part of the game. It's not even really a part of my game, because although I am 600+ pages into writing house rules, that part of my game world hasn't been fleshed out enough for the players to really get inspired enough to pursue it. They don't know how cool it is to be a wizard because I haven't written the wizard supplements yet. But let's be frank, no matter how compliant the DM might be with the players rube Goldberg ingenuity with iron stakes, rope, sacks and the occasional livestock, they aren't going to invent those rules and systems for such things on their own. It's not even going to enter into their imaginations, and as such the silence of the rules effectively bans it from the game. Sure, but that is to be frank, that's the first thing you've said that really misses the point. Because boats were implied by the game to be in the rules and boats exist in the real world setting. None of that requires a lot of conjecture on the part of anyone, although to be honest, until the DM actually made good reasons to own a boat, it never occurred to any of us that we would want to build a boat, and probably never happened that in most games ANYONE built a boat. In my game, the PC made dozens of ships-of-the line and had whole fleets of 'boats'. But that didn't happen because we were so much more creative than anyone else; it happened because we made a system for it. Besides which, this conversation began as a discussion about player empowerment, and not DM empowerment. Which of your two examples more empowers the player? No, it's quite OK. I appreciate actually honest attempts to engage in conversation, rambling or not. I can't possibly fault anyone for rambling in any fairness. My point is that in your game, you probably didn't actually build a lot of Galleons at all. And you certainly didn't build any 50 'gun' advanced frigates. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What Has Caused the OSR Revival?
Top