I still don't really understand the meaning of OSR myself, but I've wanted to make an OSR game for urban fantasy, conspiracy thriller, and supernatural horror for a while now. The problem with existing games in those genres is that they have fractured player bases, if they have player bases to speak of, and some of them are just lore factoid cults pretending to be games. I want something that promotes creativity and modular design. Something that combines Cryptworld, Bureau 13, WitchCraft, Urban Arcana, Chronicles of Darkness, etc.
OSR: what is it even
- Thread starter lategamer
- Start date
lategamer
Writer, Sailor, Filmmaker, Irishman,
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2021
- Messages
- 1,992
- Reaction score
- 4,253
I quit a long term group because of this. Didn't matter about how impassioned or skilled I was at oratory personally, it was all down to my PC skill (which I wasn't bad at talking). And that just made me disengage.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2020
- Messages
- 15,845
- Reaction score
- 52,031
Yeah, I would have struggled there too. I dislike play that removes all player agency and transfers it to widgets on the character sheet. Social Interaction is a minefield TTRPG-wise.
AsenRG
#FuckWotC #PlayNonDnDGames
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2018
- Messages
- 17,805
- Reaction score
- 23,351
...one can argue that that hasn't stopped many other people
!Yeah, I hear you both
!Admittedly, I sigh, usually inwardly, and roll (with) it. But I really prefer the other option, which is why I run games the way I do!
LikelyArrow
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2022
- Messages
- 310
- Reaction score
- 924
Fair, but the development you were describing seems to have occurred in 1985-1986 with the publication of the T1-3 and A1-4 compilation modules. Before then you had only the individually-published modules that as far as I know were originally meant for tournament play and were then adapted for home use.
In any case, having an episodic campaign where the DM uses a bit of fiat to set a new stage at the beginning of each module is still reasonably far from the railroad of the DL modules that tried to keep the PCs on track with the plot during the course of play, whatever the players’ intentions.
LikelyArrow
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2022
- Messages
- 310
- Reaction score
- 924
With the necessary caveat that the author’s a friend, you might take a look at Modern Necessities by
Scrying Dutchman It’s a modern fantasy supplement for Old School Essentials. The Kickstarter for the new edition has been successful enough that it’s also getting supplements for cyberpunk and weird west.
BTW, just as a nod to the question in the title of the thread:
OSR, to me, is looking back at early play and voluntarily limiting yourself to certain aspects of it (mechanically and in playstyle), then positing developing from those.
In the actual early era. yes, naturally there was all sorts of growth, experimentation, and evolution, mechanically and stylistically.
Awesome. Gave us, collectively, all kinds of fun ways to play.
Some of those rapidly developing ways to play and mechanics were due to dissatisfaction, one way or another, with the early mechanics and playstyles.
OSR, theoretically is about voluntarily choosing to play with (a subset of) those early styles/mechanics and find the fun within those limits, rather than constantly being frustrated banging up against them.
That is easier to choose to do with the vast number of other evolved and refined options easily available now.
OSR, to me, is looking back at early play and voluntarily limiting yourself to certain aspects of it (mechanically and in playstyle), then positing developing from those.
In the actual early era. yes, naturally there was all sorts of growth, experimentation, and evolution, mechanically and stylistically.
Awesome. Gave us, collectively, all kinds of fun ways to play.
Some of those rapidly developing ways to play and mechanics were due to dissatisfaction, one way or another, with the early mechanics and playstyles.
OSR, theoretically is about voluntarily choosing to play with (a subset of) those early styles/mechanics and find the fun within those limits, rather than constantly being frustrated banging up against them.
That is easier to choose to do with the vast number of other evolved and refined options easily available now.
robertsconley
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- May 3, 2018
- Messages
- 5,747
- Reaction score
- 15,031
If you going for a larger player base then you need to target D&D mechanics. It's not fantasy, mind you, nor a retro-clone of classic D&D. But definitely, that would be considered D&Dish.
For example
Shadowdark (as an example of how minimal you can get D&Dish wise)
Cities without Number
Stars without Number
White Star
What you don't want to do and get advantage of the compatibility is go completely off beat like with Mork Borg or Black Hack (uses 2d6 instead of 1d20).
This is not to say the above doesn't have an advantage in adopting the OSR. They are both straightforward minimalist rule sets, including Shadowdark. That is also part of the OSR. And there is always the chance that what you come up with will resonate with a substantial segment of OSR folks like Mork Borg did.
You may want to look at Cities without Number as the foundation. Kevin Crawford has opened it up and all the "without Number" RPGs have a large player base.
robertsconley
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- May 3, 2018
- Messages
- 5,747
- Reaction score
- 15,031
Long ago I realized the above was an issue and got around to writing it up formally when I released my Basic Rules for the Majestic Fantasy RPG.
First, I assume that characters are competent; specifically, if they have the time and resources, they will succeed. If I have them roll it is not for success or failure but how long time and how much resources are used. For example, an apprentice will succeed at making a chair, but it may take longer and use more material than the same chair made by a master.
Likewise, I assume rolls at the listed odds (for example GURPS Broadsword-13) are for when time or resources are limited (like in combat). I realize this contradicts RAW of dozens of RPGs out there but
Fuck em.
However, I also have the rule of one (or crit failure). Basically represents the fact that shit happens in the most mundane of circumstances. So for D&D, I have the player roll a 1d20 and only count it as a failure on a nat 1. For GURPS it is a nat 17 or 18. For Mithras it would be a nat 99 or 100. Even with a failure, the result is more humorous than catastrophic
In your case, I would still have you roll looking but only look for a one or whatever is the closest equivalent to 2%. Even if you botch it, you still may win the deal although with complications because your character unfortunately didn't notice the piece of snot dangling slightly below their nose.
If you want to read the whole chapter, I have it up for free here.
Something along those lines should really appear in almost any sort of RPG with a mainstream ( GM + players) style game ( and in appropriate variations for every other sort or RPG).Long ago I realized the above was an issue and got around to writing it up formally when I released my Basic Rules for the Majestic Fantasy RPG.
First, I assume that characters are competent; specifically, if they have the time and resources, they will succeed. If I have them roll it is not for success or failure but how long time and how much resources are used. For example, an apprentice will succeed at making a chair, but it may take longer and use more material than the same chair made by a master.
Likewise, I assume rolls at the listed odds (for example GURPS Broadsword-13) are for when time or resources are limited (like in combat). I realize this contradicts RAW of dozens of RPGs out there but
Fuck em.
However, I also have the rule of one (or crit failure). Basically represents the fact that shit happens in the most mundane of circumstances. So for D&D, I have the player roll a 1d20 and only count it as a failure on a nat 1. For GURPS it is a nat 17 or 18. For Mithras it would be a nat 99 or 100. Even with a failure, the result is more humorous than catastrophic
In your case, I would still have you roll looking but only look for a one or whatever is the closest equivalent to 2%. Even if you botch it, you still may win the deal although with complications because your character unfortunately didn't notice the piece of snot dangling slightly below their nose.
If you want to read the whole chapter, I have it up for free here.
View attachment 79475
View attachment 79476
Toadmaster
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2018
- Messages
- 3,603
- Reaction score
- 9,064
Yeah, I'm pretty much out in games run like that. There are game mechanics for a reason, not every player is good at what their character is good at.
About the only game I have ever walked out of mid session was really into this "the player has to do it".
It was full of puzzles that you had to try and figure out. Bad enough trying to do a puzzle in real life, doing one based on an imperfect description from the GM? F that. This game had the party (players) sitting and futzing around with bowls of water literally for hours and that was just the straw that broke the camels back resulting in my getting up and walking out on the game. The entire game session had gone on like that, pixel bitching from one puzzle room to another.
The player should clearly state the desired outcome, but how to diffuse a bomb should be a character skill, not based on the players actual ability any more than bend bars should be something the player has to personally demonstrate for success.
Last edited:
Toadmaster
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2018
- Messages
- 3,603
- Reaction score
- 9,064
So skip the roll, or load it with high modifiers! I prefer skipping, unless I can think of something like "the NPC has a self-destructive moment and rejects the win-win on misguided principles".
I am strongly in favor of rewarding player participation. My issue is when the player confronts a situation outside of their personal knowledge / comfort level and they are forced to "figure it out" when their PC has a high skill in that area. I just want to roll for it should be a perfectly acceptable option.
Role playing well and then rolling should provide a bonus. On the other side the real world aeronautical engineer playing a dumb grunt should not be allowed to build a glider in game regardless of how well he describes the process.
This is why I personally won't play a dumb character. It just isn't fun to me.
I don't think it is fair to let somebody use INT / WIS / CHA as dump stats and then play the PC as smart, wise, or smooth talking because they as a player are. It would be hypocritical of me to believe that and then expect to do it myself.
I might let a player with a 9 CHA PC, get away with a rousing speech (that the player actually RPs) once. I mean everybody gets lucky, but I'd squash that really fast if it became an on going thing.
Player: Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
9 CHA PC: About 50 years ago some guys founded this country, and something something..
Last edited:
9 is average person not moron
Yes, I realize that seems like a low margin in todays world after the future documentary Idiocracy.
Toadmaster
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2018
- Messages
- 3,603
- Reaction score
- 9,064
I didn't say a 9 was a moron. A person of low average Charisma is unlikely to give a rousing inspirational speech on the level of a Gettysburg address, a We will fight them on the beaches or Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears.
Low charisma politicians and executives try to give rousing speeches all the time.
DanDareGM
Pubber
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2023
- Messages
- 18
- Reaction score
- 48
Regards role play vs roll play. OSR puts an emphasis on "find traps by saying how you find them" type of play but its not exclusive.
The aim is to empower the player and immerse them, not frustrate them.
My routine was to get players to suggest options. If they seem stuck get them to roll against intelligence or skill or whayever to determine how many clues I would give them (between 1 and 3 usually).
That integrates role play and immersion with the character sheet.
On top of that my adventures have no mandatory choke points or take that sudden death points.
The aim is to empower the player and immerse them, not frustrate them.
My routine was to get players to suggest options. If they seem stuck get them to roll against intelligence or skill or whayever to determine how many clues I would give them (between 1 and 3 usually).
That integrates role play and immersion with the character sheet.
On top of that my adventures have no mandatory choke points or take that sudden death points.
Voros
Doomed Investigator
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2017
- Messages
- 15,253
- Reaction score
- 33,517
Yeah I'm not a fan of the 'Primer' which is full of strawmanning and straight-up factual errors, as Justin Alexander ably demonstrated in this thread: Post in thread 'Principia Apocrypha: Principles of Old School RPGs' https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/principia-apocrypha-principles-of-old-school-rpgs.1891/post-103796
Vargold
Barbaric Yawper
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2017
- Messages
- 590
- Reaction score
- 1,458
Principia Apocrypha is a much better, much more generous primer.
Voros
Doomed Investigator
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2017
- Messages
- 15,253
- Reaction score
- 33,517
Yes, totally agree, Jason Cone's Philotomy's Musings with his inspiring notion of the dungeon as a Mythic Underworld is also is terrific, still one of the best statement of ideas from the OSR, imo.
Not to take anything away from Jason Cone but he’s only pointing out what is explicitly written in the original rules regarding dungeons, it isn’t some kind of revelation.
Voros
Doomed Investigator
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2017
- Messages
- 15,253
- Reaction score
- 33,517
Ruleswise yes but the concept of the dungeon as Mythic Underworld is not there in OD&D imo.
The thread here where Alexander shows his butt and anger issues trying to argue with Rob Conley? Sometimes I think people are just looking for a fight like he is in that thread.
Voros
Doomed Investigator
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2017
- Messages
- 15,253
- Reaction score
- 33,517
He can be a dick while debating others but he's factually correct and makes the more convincing argument imo.
The idea was definitely around as it is used in Dr John Eric Holmes’ book The Maze of Peril.
He’s an ass who got too big for his britches and likes to claim he invented concepts that have been in the hobby before he co-opted them. I’m not a fan and I’ll leave it at that.
Sable Wyvern
THAC0 Defender
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2021
- Messages
- 895
- Reaction score
- 2,864
This is an excellent summary, that meshes with my experience with the OSR.
Essentially, it's identifying a number of specific things a lot of people wanted to get rid of or thought of as dumb -- XP for gold, save vs death, limited spell slots, , etc... and discovering that within a particular style of play, those thing actually work really well.
lategamer
Writer, Sailor, Filmmaker, Irishman,
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2021
- Messages
- 1,992
- Reaction score
- 4,253
Some… of those things were weird (XP for gold) and some are a mechanism for modelling (death save).
The spell slots thing though. Never understood it. Wasn’t supported in the genre fiction outside of one mid tier author.
I get that nostalgia is cool. I just never thought that old stuff is necessarily useful. Some old games I do still value (Marvel FASERIP, Golden Heroes). But D&D. Hard pass.
Isn’t it weird that it’s so subjective? (Good weird)
I’m not being contrarian on purpose but these days I tend to feel that way about new stuff, that it isn’t necessarily useful. I find most new mechanics to be gimmicks or unneeded complications trying to crack eggs that were already handled decades ago. Gumshoe for example, a gimmick and a solution to a human problem not a mechanical one. It takes a lot to sell me on a new system, the last one I really feel for is Barbarians of Lemuria.
As far as games in the OSR sphere I’d much rather play the original games, same with things like Against the Darkmaster, give me MERP instead.
As far as games in the OSR sphere I’d much rather play the original games, same with things like Against the Darkmaster, give me MERP instead.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2020
- Messages
- 15,845
- Reaction score
- 52,031
XP for Gold isn't quite as odd as it sounds, at least not when compared to XP for killing monsters. When gold is the key to advancement then people don't have to worry about killing everything they meet and the range creative plans possible to deal with an encounter open way up. Plus you avoid the subsequent problem with XP for monsters where D&D turns into a strange series of fights to the death. Granted the XP for gold thing only works or even makes sense in an environment where gold is provided or present constantly. This then mitigates for extensive treasure tables and the almost every monster having a horde of some kind. Exploration isn't supported as a goal of play at all, or at least not in terms of advancement.
I prefer XP systems that are based on deeds rather than either of the above options, but if I had to pick for a standard OSR game I'd much rather use XP for Gold than XP for Monsters.
AsenRG
#FuckWotC #PlayNonDnDGames
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2018
- Messages
- 17,805
- Reaction score
- 23,351
Nothing is necessarily better. Then again, nothing is necessarily a gimmick, either.
MERP suffers from a dearth of new, legal copies, though. And personally, I'd much rather play DCC than AD&D 1/2e.
I do like DCC and it is newer than BoL, I’ll revise my comment to the last new game that really grabbed me was DCC.
lategamer
Writer, Sailor, Filmmaker, Irishman,
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2021
- Messages
- 1,992
- Reaction score
- 4,253
As the progression was mostly “how useful are you in the next fight” it seemed that experience from killing monsters would be valuable. (“This manoeuvre worked when killing the Assholecreature so it might work when we are fighting the Rectumbeast”)
XP for gold must never sat well and was probably an early time when I thought D&D was “stupid”.
Humans bring humans it means you have to kill everything AND scour the building for every GP. As someone listed before, there’s 40-odd thousand GP easily available in TKOTB.
Again what I’m saying is that when you reward people for killing and you reward them for looting, you get people who kill AND loot rather than some idealised notion of “hmmm we can chase the money alone”
Sure. The XP economy requires both. As designed (it wasn’t by accident)
I’m kinda keen on XP for participating, XP for leading the story (deeds - whether they’re successful or not), XP for roleplay and character development.
Currently in a BRP game where, in a few days, I’ve managed to double the value in a couple of skills (going from 20-40). Which indicates
1) I did bugger all before the adventure - character was the epitome of laziness
2) the skill increases are ridiculous in BRP
3) experience systems are mostly player service and not remotely realistic.
lategamer
Writer, Sailor, Filmmaker, Irishman,
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2021
- Messages
- 1,992
- Reaction score
- 4,253
This is apparent.It may be that Gygaxian D&D just isn’t a good fit for youlategamer . That isn’t necessarily a bad thing, at least the knowledge can help you save time and concentrate on games that you might enjoy.
I definitely rail against the bars of its confinement.
It’s funny that I don’t because I feel the same way about many other systems like Gumshoe and PbtA and 2D20.
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2020
- Messages
- 15,845
- Reaction score
- 52,031
You seemed to have missed my basic point which was that the game plays very differently in each case and I prefer the way the game plays with advancement tied to treasure. I wasn't speaking to realism at all (well, aside from perhaps by allusion given my stated preference at the end of my post).
I don't think XP systems should hold realism too high as a design principle either. They are very much part of the G in RPG and I tend to treat them as such. So long as there is a thin patina of verisimilitude or covering fluff I'm fine.
lategamer
Writer, Sailor, Filmmaker, Irishman,
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2021
- Messages
- 1,992
- Reaction score
- 4,253
Gumshoe yes. PBTA 200%. 2d20 …. Well … when stripper back like in Dune it’s fine. The added complexity in STA and A!C …. Nahhhh
I guess the upshot is that I disliked “classic” D&D in the 80s so something designed to emulate it decades later is not going to pamper my sensibilities.
saskganesh
Legendary Pubber
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2018
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 530
I'll agree. We are seeing a progression to that sort of game. I also think that be publishing a lot of tourney modules, TSR primed a big part of the market for it.
So, ultimately, you do understand what OSR is now?
You simply realized you don't like it?
I mean, I guess that's as good as any other outcome.
