OSR: what is it even

[Toadmaster]

That’s true of all the human classes in B/X. You can be anything regardless of ability scores, you just get XP penalties if your Prime Requisite is below 9.

I like that approach far more that "you can't". It also deals with the issue of a PC losing their "status" if a stat is reduced, like a Ranger is just going to forget how to ranger if their Con gets zapped. Harder to advance because with their reduced health it is harder to do ranger stuff efficiently makes far more sense.

I was primarily an AD&D player so am often impressed / appalled at the differences between it and B/X. Between the two there is a decent game there, which is why "OSR" games are growing on me in a way that lets play older D&D just doesn't.

 

[Toadmaster]

I guess if you mean Erebor and Moria…perhaps. But they’re hardly classic RPG dungeons. They’re palaces and cities.

Not a string of 30’ x 30’ rooms which has [creature|treasure|trap]

Crazy mazes (dungeons) turn up in a variety of mythology, the example I gave of King Minos and the minotaur from Greek Mythology is pretty explicitly a dungeon and makes about as much sense as most found in an RPG.

 

[T. Foster]

D&D dungeons have some common game-convenience characteristics that make them unrealistic - they’re larger and more spread out and generally more flat and regular-shaped to fit graph-paper (making both mapping and verbal description easier). At various points D&D requires you to accept that the game aspect trumps world-logic, and dungeon architecture is one of them.

But within those conventions they don’t need to be random and arbitrary and nonsensical. You CAN make dungeons like that, but you don’t have to. Both the architecture and the population/stocking can follow a sort of thematic almost-logic (what bloggers dubbed “Gygaxian naturalism”) that gives them a patina of plausibility and increases the tactical and strategic depth by allowing the players to make informed decisions about the environment and its inhabitants. Crypts are different from mines which are different from caves which are different from strongholds which are different from insane wizard laboratories and so forth (even though all of them are probably larger and more regularly laid-out than they would be if they were “real”). Monsters and treasures and traps don’t need to be placed randomly - though as a game convention all three of them should be present and probably in something like the proportions given by the random tables (more monsters than traps, more and better treasure in the guarded/difficult areas than the empty ones, etc).

Sure you can reject the whole premise, but there is a middle ground - it’s not a binary between random pointless funhouses and no dungeons at all. If you think dungeon-crawling is a fun part of play you can still have it if you want it without having to totally turn your sense of logic and verisimilitude off (you just have to recalibrate it a bit…).

 

[xanther]

... At various points D&D requires you to accept that the game aspect trumps world-logic, and dungeon architecture is one of them....

I'd say more precisely TSR required you to accept this. The Caverns of Thracia shows you can have an underground complex (dungeon) to explore that has world-logic, etc. Just because TSR couldn't design such things just means TSR was not great at such things not that they are inherent to D&D, it's rules or even how you play it.

I'm actually pro-dungeon, they can be well done and well done they are the best.

But it is so easy to do them poorly and be such nonsense. It is the nonsense TSR dungeons and TSR defending them as some paragon of design (largely for commercial reasons) and actively attacking at times suggestions to the contrary, that has given dungeons a bad rap. The mad wizard...please...used lightly can except...but it really is a cop out...or the magic out...when it is used to justify more than a few things.

 

[T. Foster]

Caverns of Thracia still has dungeon conventions: it’s still got mostly 10’ wide hallways and large square and rectangular rooms and generally rectangular-shaped levels and so forth. You’re not going to find anyplace in the real world that looks like the Caverns of Thracia maps. Bringing it up doesn’t refute my point, it makes it.

 

[Fenris-77]

The fact that I might roll my eyes at the artificial nature of dungeons whilst sitting at my desk shooting the breeze about RPGs doesn't have much effect on how much fun I have playing a game that explores that exact same dungeon.

 

[lategamer]

Crazy mazes (dungeons) turn up in a variety of mythology, the example I gave of King Minos and the minotaur from Greek Mythology is pretty explicitly a dungeon and makes about as much sense as most found in an RPG.

Except that it’s a labyrinth not a dungeon, the idea being you couldn’t avoid bumping into the deadly Minotaur so it was a sporting way of getting rid of an enemy.

As opposed to “here’s an underground system that would have taken hundreds of thousands of man hours to build, inhabited by an unfeasible menagerie of intelligent and non/intelligent hostile creatures and happens to have a kings ransom spread around it. Oh and there are traps that the denizens haven’t triggered. Or if they do, they reset them.

And then after building it, the Dark Lord got in a landscaping firm so it blended in.

 

[lategamer]

D&D dungeons have some common game-convenience characteristics that make them unrealistic -

Yeah, they’re not to my taste.

Let’s face it. I’m irritating enough without me querying the realism of your dungeon. Best I stay home that week.

Sure you can reject the whole premise, but there is a middle ground - it’s not a binary between random pointless funhouses and no dungeons at all.

This is a DUNgeon not a FUNgeon, man.

 

[LikelyArrow]

The fact that I might roll my eyes at the artificial nature of dungeons whilst sitting at my desk shooting the breeze about RPGs doesn't have much effect on how much fun I have playing a game that explores that exact same dungeon.

Agreed. Plus I have fun trying to come up with scenarios in which some of the less plausible aspects of D&D actually make sense.

For example, for dungeons, one idea I've considered — and planned a campaign using this premise that sadly never got off the ground — is to take the ancient idea that the heavens are the realm of perfect order (and hence Law) and the Earth and especially its depths are realm of disorder (Chaos). Thus the deeper you go, the less Law (including the laws of nature) holds sway and the weirder things can get.

In that world I was going to have dwarves see it as their god-given purpose to bring order to the depths and finish the work of creation, which is why they dig down.

 

[Fenris-77]

Agreed. Plus I have fun trying to come up with scenarios in which some of the less plausible aspects of D&D actually make sense.

For example, for dungeons, one idea I've considered — and planned a campaign using this premise that sadly never got off the ground — is to take the ancient idea that the heavens are the realm of perfect order (and hence Law) and the Earth and especially its depths are realm of disorder (Chaos). Thus the deeper you go, the less Law (including the laws of nature) holds sway and the weirder things can get.

You should take a look at Heart as this is exactly how it works. The deeper you go the weirder things get and the less the normal rules of physics and whatnot apply.

 

[ffilz]

This was before multiclassing (a hack that I hated - it just reinforced to me that class-based systems were awful - and that goes a long way towards why I think PBTA is regressive).

Before multiclassing? OD&D book 1 has elf fighter/mage... Supplement 1 Greyhawk added the thief as an optional multiclass for elves, dwarves, and halflings.

 

[T. Foster]

Before multiclassing? OD&D book 1 has elf fighter/mage... Supplement 1 Greyhawk added the thief as an optional multiclass for elves, dwarves, and halflings.

I assume he meant 3E+ style multiclassing where you can take a level or two of this, a level or two of that, and a level or two of the other thing. OD&D and AD&D style multiclasding was different, effectively defining a new hybrid-class (which BX formalized by turning “fighter/magic-user” into “elf” while remaining functionally almost identical).

 

[lategamer]

Agreed. Plus I have fun trying to come up with scenarios in which some of the less plausible aspects of D&D actually make sense.

I can see the fun in that. Plausibility is a thing I chase.

 

[lategamer]

Before multiclassing? OD&D book 1 has elf fighter/mage... Supplement 1 Greyhawk added the thief as an optional multiclass for elves, dwarves, and halflings.

We never even saw OD&D as a book. We started with Basic. And then AD&D. And then when the multiclass rules appeared everyone was multiclassed as a thief so they could get those sweet thief skills.

 

[E-Rocker]

(This is in response to the thread in general, not anyone in particular): I greatly prefer dungeons that don't make a lick of goddamn sense. But that's mostly a theoretical stance, since I've gotten to do very little dungeon crawling as a player.

 

[sharps54]

We never even saw OD&D as a book. We started with Basic. And then AD&D. And then when the multiclass rules appeared everyone was multiclassed as a thief so they could get those sweet thief skills.

AD&D 1E has multiclass rules but you are right in Basic they are just wrapped into race as class.

 

[lategamer]

(This is in response to the thread in general, not anyone in particular): I greatly prefer dungeons that don't make a lick of goddamn sense. But that's mostly a theoretical stance, since I've gotten to do very little dungeon crawling as a player.

That’s fascinating. And odd to me.

But then I am reductionist in many things. If there’s a multi room subterranean structure I wanna know who built it. Especially if it has stone blocks and mortar.



Now if we are talking about The Long Stair then I may be more forgiving.

 

[ffilz]

I'd love to see a usable map of Derinkuyu:

View attachment 1710354173094.webp

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I'd love to see a usable map of Derinkuyu:

View attachment 79342

Something like this isn't usable?

 

[LikelyArrow]

Something like this isn't usable?

That's good, but missing some details that would be important in a game.

 

[sharps54]

That's good, but missing some details that would be important in a game.

They left those details off so you can customize it to your campaign

 

[ffilz]

That's good, but missing some details that would be important in a game.

Yea, I'd want a plan view. And there appear to be doorways to rooms that aren't shown.

The problem is a usable plan view...

On caves, in summer of 1978 we visited Wind Cave and I came home with a map. I tried a few times to use it in adventuring, and the most successful use of it was most recently to better interpret the map of Dyskund Caverns from Shadows on the Borderland (when Dyskund Caverns was first published in White Dwarf magazine, I instantly recognized it as being a portion of Wind Cave).

In grad school I actually started caving in wild (undeveloped) caves and started collecting maps. But that experience mostly just convinced me to stick to mostly dungeons with the occasional cave mapped like TSR modules. Or "Star Trek caves" as the cavers referred to.

For player mapping, mostly straight lines works best. Caves, natural or not, wind up with me drawing stuff for the players more.

 

[JoeNuttall]

I'd love to see a usable map of Derinkuyu:

View attachment 79342

I've got a proper accurate usable map of Derinkuyu I keep planning to blog about. (That photo by the way is of Kaymakli not Derinkuyu). There are some astonishingly bad and inaccurate and just plain made up maps of it out there on the net - like that side level view on this thread which is 99% invented. It's a fascinating place which attracts cranks and crackpot theories!

 

[David Johansen]

There's always the sewers of Paris.

 

[JoeNuttall]

There's always the sewers of Paris.

As Humphrey Bogart said.

 

[Vargold]

I prefer the "point crawl" approach to dungeoneering (e.g, the goblin cave generation system in Beyond the Wall). Mapping got old real fast in the early 1980s, and I've generally avoided anything where a square by square approach to the play environment is necessary.

 

[saskganesh]

I think someone had spotted an earlier example in a discussion on this board, but can't find the reference.

Slavers A1-4. You get automatically captured to start A4.

 

[Voros]

Ok I see the issue. You’re mapping them forward to 3e and MMORPG roles.

Thief was the puzzle person. That role. Opportunistic combat.

Fighter was damage plus armour. An offensive tank.

Cleric was armour but an emphasis on defence

Magic User was puzzle person. Opportunistic combat

The Elf class (when it was a class) was genre emulation I guess.

These roles existed before 3e and MMORPG.



As fighters have always had access to armour and weapons, trended to high STR and CON I don’t know what you mean that they could be tough and do damage.

Yeah, the idea that specific roles/duties for classes in the party make-up is some 3e+ thing is really, really overstated.

Similar to the claim that builds and powergaming are some kinda result of 3e as well.

3e may (and I say may because I never played 3e and it sounds like old man grouching) have exacerbated those elements of the game but to claim that they weren't a well known issue or concept before then is revisionist in the extreme, imo.

I have never played 3e, only B/X, BECMI, 1e and 2e and a bit of 5e and remember well the concept: fighters and clerics up front, wizards in the middle and thieves bringing up the rear. I mean, there's a reason clerics were referred to as Healbots.

 

[Voros]

Slavers A1-4. You get automatically captured to start A4.

As I recall the opening of The Steading of the Hill Giant King says the PCs are prisoners or something and are ordered to go deal with the giants. Oddly it says if they fail they'll face the executioner's axe.

Which is a bit strange, if they failed the PCs would either be dead or with no motivation to return to be beheaded!

If I remember right later versions even added a Geas spell to force the PCs to accept the mission!

 

[Voros]

I assume he meant 3E+ style multiclassing where you can take a level or two of this, a level or two of that, and a level or two of the other thing. OD&D and AD&D style multiclasding was different, effectively defining a new hybrid-class (which BX formalized by turning “fighter/magic-user” into “elf” while remaining functionally almost identical).

I'm enough of a purist that I consider multi-classing a blight on D&D. Didn't like it in 1e or 2e where it was a favourite of powergamers everywhere.

The absence of multi-classing is one of the reasons I ended up preferring the simplicity of OD&D and the 'Basic' rulesets.

 

[Acmegamer]

I prefer the "point crawl" approach to dungeoneering (e.g, the goblin cave generation system in Beyond the Wall). Mapping got old real fast in the early 1980s, and I've generally avoided anything where a square by square approach to the play environment is necessary.

Wait, I've been gaming since 1978 and by and large I've drawn lines between rooms and with directions on my paper, as a player. I'd jot notes around my chicken scratch notes and that's never failed me as a player. As GM I do use hexes and there is a lot more details and notes. Notes I don't need as a player. Below quick example shitty left handed chicken scratch mapping example.

 

[robertsconley]

I prefer the "point crawl" approach to dungeoneering (e.g, the goblin cave generation system in Beyond the Wall). Mapping got old real fast in the early 1980s, and I've generally avoided anything where a square by square approach to the play environment is necessary.

After playing LARPS for a decade my view is that people don't account for situational awareness enough. Actual mapping is highly situational. However, even with experience, situational awareness varies greatly between individuals. But generally a group of six individual has something who has a good enough sense.

Mapping is needed if you think something is off and, as a result, there is a secret room somewhere that was missed. But even then, nine times out of ten, it is just easier to check rooms for secret doors than to suss one out by mapping.

For a long time, this observation of mine was pretty weak, as there were only a handful of times I had been in a big enough maze in live action to where situational awareness was a thing. But then came along VTTs and dynamic lighting. Some players are able to say, "Oh yeah, we went right here, so we need to go in this direction." While others are just, well, not so adept at finding their way around.

 

[LikelyArrow]

Slavers A1-4. You get automatically captured to start A4.

To be fair those were tournament modules, weren't they? Not meant to be part of an ongoing campaign, at least as most of the OSR would think of it.

 

[David Johansen]

Rolemaster Standard System had the Blessed By The War God talent, which gave huge bonuses and advantages but required that the character accept a quest from the temple each month. A bit heavy handed but there you go.

 

[Sable Wyvern]

Rolemaster Standard System had the Blessed By The War God talent, which gave huge bonuses and advantages but required that the character accept a quest from the temple each month. A bit heavy handed but there you go.

The very first talent I put a big black (figurative) line through.

 

[LikelyArrow]

Rolemaster Standard System had the Blessed By The War God talent, which gave huge bonuses and advantages but required that the character accept a quest from the temple each month. A bit heavy handed but there you go.

I've sometimes thought Paladin in D&D should have been an in-universe thing instead of a (sub)class: a fighter (or even cleric) with high enough Charisma* that a lord or lady would take their oath and confer upon them the ability to lay on hands and cure diseases.**

The idea is they would get the powers in exchange for solemn oaths that severely restricted their behavior, and would lose the powers and worse if they broke the oaths, but without having the awkwardness of changing class.

---

* I legit think the requirement of high Charisma for paladins turns on a bit of wordplay: the English word "charisma" originally meant "a divine gift;" hence the name of the charismatic movement.

** This is somewhat similar to a historical belief in England, Scotland, and France that the king or queen had divinely-given powers, including the ability to heal by touch, called the "royal touch."

 

[David Johansen]

The very first talent I put a big black (figurative) line through.

I've always thought it was a missed oportunity to have different blessings for different gods. You must complete a quest every month for the goddess of love!

 

[Toadmaster]

I've sometimes thought Paladin in D&D should have been an in-universe thing instead of a (sub)class: a fighter (or even cleric) with high enough Charisma* that a lord or lady would take their oath and confer upon them the ability to lay on hands and cure diseases.**

The idea is they would get the powers in exchange for solemn oaths that severely restricted their behavior, and would lose the powers and worse if they broke the oaths, but without having the awkwardness of changing class.

---

* I legit think the requirement of high Charisma for paladins turns on a bit of wordplay: the English word "charisma" originally meant "a divine gift;" hence the name of the charismatic movement.

** This is somewhat similar to a historical belief in England, Scotland, and France that the king or queen had divinely-given powers, including the ability to heal by touch, called the "royal touch."

Class bloat has been an issue for D&D from early on, that could have easily been addressed (and has been in some derivative games), by simply offering pools of talents, skill sets, perks whatever to tailor a "subclass". This would also help address many of the issues that dual class / multiclass were created for.

Having Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, Cavalier etc, each with special rules just added complexity and tended to make the "pure" class seem dull and underpowered. If these all started off as a Fighter and traded off an ability to gain an ability. Instead of required stats, higher stats could have granted an additional ability related to that stat to ultimately reach the OP-ness of the official sub-classes. A Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian with average stats might have to trade off some of the "core" fighter perks to gain their special perks.

 

[David Johansen]

It probabably comes from Palladium but I've always liked the idea that heavy armour goes to fighters and longbows go to archers and rangers, pick one or the other.

 

[Sharrow]

For a long time, this observation of mine was pretty weak, as there were only a handful of times I had been in a big enough maze in live action to where situational awareness was a thing. But then came along VTTs and dynamic lighting. Some players are able to say, "Oh yeah, we went right here, so we need to go in this direction." While others are just, well, not so adept at finding their way around.

One of my players is like this. With no map he just doesn't have a clue. This does lead to problems, because I happily GM map-less, holding a layout in my head, and while I can almost always describe exactly where things are, etc., doing so in a way that makes it clear to that player (the others seem to have much less of an issue with TotM no-map play) is sometimes beyond me.