OSR: what is it even

[LikelyArrow]

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.

Does the player have aphantasia by any chance?

 

[Sharrow]

Does the player have aphantasia by any chance?

They've not said so, but I suspect that's the case.

Another, perhaps related, thing that weirds me out is that apparently about 30% of the population can't intuitively relate a map to the ground, and this is apparently not linked to 'intelligence'. Such people can learn to use a map and navigational equipment effectively, but find it hard. To me it seems easy - icon/name/whatever 'a' on the map equals object 'A' in life, marking 'b' to 'B', and so on, and that orients the map and from there you can use the map to find things, move around, etc. to the limits of the accuracy of the map (which will never be 100% - something one must never forget).

 

[Sable Wyvern]

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.

Coming from Rolemaster and then D&D 3e, I found the AD&D 1e ranger, who wore heavy armour, had no particular predilection to archery or two-weapon fighting, and entered the wilderness not to be one with it but to tame it and slay monsters, to be a marvelous concept.

 

[ffilz]

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.

While exploring caves I have almost always been able to retrace my route. Once we did spend several minutes trying to find our way back out of a chamber because we had not noted that the passage we first entered the chamber rounded a rock that concealed the passage. Eventually we saw the gap behind the rock and continued on out of the cave. I have also maybe once been confused by returning through a maze of twisty passages. Now finding through a maze in the first place can be hard resulting in repeated returns to some hub within the maze until you finally find the passage that leads on.

I think there is a fun game of mapping an old school dungeon square by square, but you have to be in the mood. I was mapping a play by post dungeon for quite some time until I hit a combination of being too busy to update the map, and the Tapatalk app that let me access the forum on my phone stopped allowing posting pictures so instead of taking a picture of the map with my phone and posting it, I had to transfer the picture to my computer.

With my Roll20 dungeons, I have been loading scale maps into the VTT and just use fog of war to slowly reveal the dungeon.

The RQ campaign did start off with a player chicken scratching a map using the VTT draw of Rainbow Mounds from Apple Lane.

 

[Dr. Gnome]

I don't know anymore. All I know is that I like a simple rules-based (*not* complex or crunchy and *not* storytelling like FATE or whatever) system that I can introduce a friend's wife or kid to that has never played a TTRPG without a ton of setup or explanation. For me, "OSR" games that are simple to explain and run, like almost all the 'OSE' and clone-like basic red-box D&D systems I have used, I like just fine.

Generally don't like online games and generally don't have the luxury of playing with people who have hours on end to learn a new system; also generally interact with people who like *some* structure other than just "here, we're playing a 'shared story!'" - one of the worst experiences I have had was trying to get into a Diaspora group with a bunch of people who didn't really get TTRPGs let alone a crunchy, 'story-based' TTRPG supposedly based on 'hard space physics' or whatever. Like, I know a bunch of people who like Star Trek. But the actual Morpheus RPG is kinda a nightmare to take and explain to new people who have not ever played the game. At least, was for me.

On the other hand, with something like OSE I can just pick out weird pre-made characters from bizarre Black Pudding magazines or whatever and be like, "Here, do you want to be a berzerker rocker or a mystical elf whatnot" and explain some basic mechanics and there we go.

This was kind of why (I know, bizarre tangent) I liked 4E - I was able to get people character sheets complete with power cards made in like an hour and then get to tabletop gaming on a hexmap and everyone had a good idea of what they could do; mechanics were easy as heck to explain, and we all had a lot of fun with both the combat and roleplaying parts. If they ever make a system like that again with a character builder that prints out power cards I'll just throw subscription money at them.

 

[AsenRG]

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

Thank you.

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!

...agreed it's weird.

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

"Railroading: now with a side dish of 'a wizard says you can't refuse'!"

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.

...a viewpoint I'd never be able to understand!

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.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who need a map to orient themselves, and those who are happy playing theater of the mind!

to the limits of the accuracy of the map (which will never be 100% - something one must never forget).

Heresy!

I don't know anymore. All I know is that I like a simple rules-based (*not* complex or crunchy and *not* storytelling like FATE or whatever) system that I can introduce a friend's wife or kid to that has never played a TTRPG without a ton of setup or explanation. For me, "OSR" games that are simple to explain and run, like almost all the 'OSE' and clone-like basic red-box D&D systems I have used, I like just fine.

Generally don't like online games and generally don't have the luxury of playing with people who have hours on end to learn a new system; also generally interact with people who like *some* structure other than just "here, we're playing a 'shared story!'" - one of the worst experiences I have had was trying to get into a Diaspora group with a bunch of people who didn't really get TTRPGs let alone a crunchy, 'story-based' TTRPG supposedly based on 'hard space physics' or whatever. Like, I know a bunch of people who like Star Trek. But the actual Morpheus RPG is kinda a nightmare to take and explain to new people who have not ever played the game. At least, was for me.

On the other hand, with something like OSE I can just pick out weird pre-made characters from bizarre Black Pudding magazines or whatever and be like, "Here, do you want to be a berzerker rocker or a mystical elf whatnot" and explain some basic mechanics and there we go.

This was kind of why (I know, bizarre tangent) I liked 4E - I was able to get people character sheets complete with power cards made in like an hour and then get to tabletop gaming on a hexmap and everyone had a good idea of what they could do; mechanics were easy as heck to explain, and we all had a lot of fun with both the combat and roleplaying parts. If they ever make a system like that again with a character builder that prints out power cards I'll just throw subscription money at them.

..."I like 4e and OSR" is a stance not many people share, I've noticed!

 

[Toadmaster]

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.

That is the kind of thing I mean, Rolemaster was kind of similar but more complex by adding a relatively simple skill system (relative to games with heavy skills). It wouldn't have to be super deep, basically you've got the combat charts, save charts and experience tables (Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Wizard), allowable weapons and armor, allowable magic, hit die type and con bonus allowed, and some special abilities (see the Thief, Bard, Ranger, Paladin etc for ideas).

Now this isn't the kind of thing you would want every player sorting through each time, but something that could be done with the GM on the side.

I want a quick, light fighter, who is sneaky and good at finding hidden things, avoiding traps and disarming them, but is totally not a thief.

GM can work with the player and maybe they end up with this "not a thief" call them a scout, spy, tomb raider, professional guide what have you. No pick pocket, climbing or slight of hand, but can move silently and hide in shadows, find / disarm traps, can use pretty much any weapon, but only the lighter armors, uses table B (aka Cleric tables) for to hit, save and experience, and gets a d8 for hit points.

 

[saskganesh]

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.

I doubt the intention was that clear. Anyway, the Slaver series was later repackaged to be the bridge between T1-4 and GDQ! So it was part of a complete campaign.

 

[LikelyArrow]

I doubt the intention was that clear. Anyway, the Slaver series was later repackaged to be the bridge between T1-4 and GDQ! So it was part of a complete campaign.

I mean cereal companies say their products are part of a complete breakfast but the breakfast always looked pretty darn complete without it…

More seriously, from what I could find, this development happened after Dragonlance, and the original point of contention was over whether the DL series of modules is where the railroadiness got started.

 

[saskganesh]

I mean cereal companies say their products are part of a complete breakfast but the breakfast always looked pretty darn complete without it…

More seriously, from what I could find, this development happened after Dragonlance, and the original point of contention was over whether the DL series of modules is where the railroadiness got started.

Dragonlance is 1984, Slavers is 1980. If Slavers is not intended for campaign use, then Dragonlance should not be intended as a campaign either. We do know both were intended for continued, serial, play with recurring characters Which sounds suspiciously like a campaign. They are just not presented as sandbox, a term which is itself anachronistic for the 1970s and 80s.

 

[Dr. Gnome]

Thank you.


...agreed it's weird.


"Railroading: now with a side dish of 'a wizard says you can't refuse'!"

...a viewpoint I'd never be able to understand!


There are two kinds of people in the world: those who need a map to orient themselves, and those who are happy playing theater of the mind!


Heresy!


..."I like 4e and OSR" is a stance not many people share, I've noticed!

I've been told I'm not like many people before.

 

[Edgewise]

I don't know anymore. All I know is that I like a simple rules-based (*not* complex or crunchy and *not* storytelling like FATE or whatever) system that I can introduce a friend's wife or kid to that has never played a TTRPG without a ton of setup or explanation. For me, "OSR" games that are simple to explain and run, like almost all the 'OSE' and clone-like basic red-box D&D systems I have used, I like just fine.

One reason that I have come to appreciate games that have little to no metagame mechanics (luck, karma, etc.) is because I like RPGs where the players don't have to know the rules. At all. You can explain what their character is good at and what they are carrying in common terms, and just go from there.

Obviously, that's not a recipe for a very "deep" RPG experience. For instance, you can't really play a wizard for long without learning something about the game mechanics. The Vancian spells of D&D make that simpler, but it really only works for a one-off. Still, that's all you need for a convention or just a way to ready-set-game with any players and zero delay.

 

[Sharrow]

A lot of 'crunchy' games from back in the 70s and 80s required little player skill to start playing. They didn't have exception-based mechanics, and generally that meant what you could do was 'what anyone can do, and what's on your sheet is what you're good at'. They also didn't have karma, etc., and as you say, those sorts of metagame mechanics can be harder to explain and to learn to use effectively (honestly, aside from Torg, in every single game I've played with them, people have either forgotten about them or complained constantly about them being too important).

There were exceptions to this of course, but I never really found it hard to show complete newbies enough to get them into a game in a very short time. The trick, of course, being to not run them through full chargen until they were hooked and wanted a character all of their very own, rather than a 'loaner'.

 

[AsenRG]

I've been told I'm not like many people before.

...to clarify, if clarification is needed, you like what you like, "unusual" doesn't mean "wrong". It just means I'm kinda surprised, but that's on me.

 

[DanDareGM]

I have really enjoyed this thread.

I would recommend to many people here "The Elusive Shift" by Jon Peterson which talks about the history of RPG from Chainmail days. That's a history I lived through having played Chainmail and then moving on to White Box D&D in 1974.

I think the best answer to the question of "what is OSR?" comes from "A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming" by Matthew J. Finch and Mythmere Games ™. The article covers what they call "4 Zen Moments". I wont put the full text here, just the 4 headings:

1. First Zen Moment: Rulings, not Rules
2. Second Zen Moment: Player Skill, not Character Abilities
3. Third Zen Moment: Heroic, not Superhero
4. Fourth Zen Moment: Forget "Game Balance."

I agree that those 4 paint the picture of what it was like playing early games, and it is still the methodology I GM with and get my players to understand.

It also tends to involve somewhat algorithmic situation generation, even if you have a situation story arc or two running through the game. Related to I recommend this article: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4147/roleplaying-games/dont-prep-plots

(and pretty much everything else on that site)

 

[AsenRG]

One reason that I have come to appreciate games that have little to no metagame mechanics (luck, karma, etc.) is because I like RPGs where the players don't have to know the rules. At all. You can explain what their character is good at and what they are carrying in common terms, and just go from there.

Obviously, that's not a recipe for a very "deep" RPG experience. For instance, you can't really play a wizard for long without learning something about the game mechanics. The Vancian spells of D&D make that simpler, but it really only works for a one-off. Still, that's all you need for a convention or just a way to ready-set-game with any players and zero delay.

Yeah, me too!

It's just that I consider escalating HP to be a metagame mechanic. And judging by how hard it is for people that don't know the rules to process the 5th "close miss that only scratches you, so you're fine, no need to run and check your guts", I'm not the only one.

Amusingly, one of those guys told me to "stop going easy on the party just to extend the fight"!

(I actually had to tell him the rules to defend my GMing then, funny enough...)

 

[lategamer]

First Zen Moment: Rulings, not Rules

OK, I can get behind this. There's not a rule for every situation (unless your players are very sedate).

Second Zen Moment: Player Skill, not Character Abilities

Whut? I get that it's hard to play a dumb character if you're smart abut harder to play a smart character when you're dumb. But really I don't grok this.

Third Zen Moment: Heroic, not Superhero

Depends on the challenges. Superheroes have them too. The challenges get sized up. And Heroic is a style of play as well as a motivation. Is this saying OSR means playing heroic (as in good characters), Heroic (having a heroes journey) or HEROIC (en route to being a demigod).

Or do they mean the stagnancy of superheroes? (I'll bring this up in another thread)

Fourth Zen Moment: Forget "Game Balance."

We can agree on this. Game balance is wack.

I agree that those 4 paint the picture of what it was like playing early games, and it is still the methodology I GM with and get my players to understand.

It's not quite my experience playing early games.

 

[lategamer]

It's just that I consider escalating HP to be a metagame mechanic. And judging by how hard it is for people that don't know the rules to process the 5th "close miss that only scratches you, so you're fine, no need to run and check your guts", I'm not the only one.

That's why I am keen on systems that actively debilitate when you take hits. That's why T23L3rdEd does it. I know it can create a death spiral but I think that's better than hit hit hit hit, fall down.

 

[DanDareGM]

Whut? I get that it's hard to play a dumb character if you're smart abut harder to play a smart character when you're dumb. But really I don't grok this.

Not really what that zen moment is about.
Consider the find traps skill. Dice roll - find it or not.
Early games had no such character skill, instead you played it out. "I pour water on the floor ahead of me to see if it sinks in to any secret seams" and so on. The player was more engaged in thinking about the situation and the actions taken than about character sheet skills and dice rolls.

 

[DanDareGM]

That's why I am keen on systems that actively debilitate when you take hits. That's why T23L3rdEd does it. I know it can create a death spiral but I think that's better than hit hit hit hit, fall down.

Yeah, I really liked Traveller for that. You took hits to your attributes, effectively reducing the DMs they gave you for actions. You died if you got to 0 in any attribute.

 

[AsenRG]

That's why I am keen on systems that actively debilitate when you take hits. That's why T23L3rdEd does it. I know it can create a death spiral but I think that's better than hit hit hit hit, fall down.

You and me both.
Besides, I think death spirals only suck if they take lots of time OOC. If you have them, as you do in life, the idea is to lock the other guy into a death spiral, period.

In fact, I've found them to be quite useful. At the very least, you have time to surrender...

Not really what that zen moment is about.
Consider the find traps skill. Dice roll - find it or not.
Early games had no such character skill, instead you played it out. "I pour water on the floor ahead of me to see if it sinks in to any secret seams" and so on. The player was more engaged in thinking about the situation and the actions taken than about character sheet skills and dice rolls.

Still works like that in my group. Especially when the Referee says "if you tell me what you do, you might not need to roll, or get large bonii - and if you don't tell me, you don't get to roll!"

For reference, I wasn't even born in that period of "early games", and I definitely wasn't able to read an English-language rulebook before the mid-90ies (it's my fourth language).

I just found the above to be a superior Refereeing practice, so I've adopted it!

Yeah, I really liked Traveller for that. You took hits to your attributes, effectively reducing the DMs they gave you for actions. You died if you got to 0 in any attribute.

Non-accidentally, Cepheus Engine, which is based on the same system*, is indeed one of my favourite games!

*It's basically Traveller's OSRIC, in case you're not familiar!

 

[lategamer]

Not really what that zen moment is about.
Consider the find traps skill. Dice roll - find it or not.
Early games had no such character skill, instead you played it out. "I pour water on the floor ahead of me to see if it sinks in to any secret seams" and so on. The player was more engaged in thinking about the situation and the actions taken than about character sheet skills and dice rolls.

Which is great if you're that sort of linear thinker - though an INT 8 character operated by a smart player comes out of it a lot better than someone who's just going to rely on dice. Sure it's not gamae balance but when the dumb fighter is finding all the fun stuff and the "smart" rogue isn't finding anything you're just deprotagonising the player.

Essentially the fighter is getting two chances.

 

[Fenris-77]

Which is great if you're that sort of linear thinker - though an INT 8 character operated by a smart player comes out of it a lot better than someone who's just going to rely on dice. Sure it's not gamae balance but when the dumb fighter is finding all the fun stuff and the "smart" rogue isn't finding anything you're just deprotagonising the player.

Essentially the fighter is getting two chances.

That's one way to read the INT stat. If it more represents book learning and memory rather than something closer to cunning then that's different. I played games as described for many years without any conceptual issues, for whatever that's worth.

 

[AsenRG]

Which is great if you're that sort of linear thinker - though an INT 8 character operated by a smart player comes out of it a lot better than someone who's just going to rely on dice. Sure it's not gamae balance but when the dumb fighter is finding all the fun stuff and the "smart" rogue isn't finding anything you're just deprotagonising the player.

Essentially the fighter is getting two chances.

The advantage of relying on player skill is that people can* develop that, and it's often quite satisfying, IME.


*Especially in our kind of games, which don't require a youngster's reflexes!

 

[robertsconley]

Yeah, I really liked Traveller for that. You took hits to your attributes, effectively reducing the DMs they gave you for actions. You died if you got to 0 in any attribute.

Actually


I am not picking on you, but I am using your mention to once again share this Classic Traveller reference I made. It is designed to be printed front and back and then folded to form a little booklet. The only house rule I have in there is one handling minor actions. It is basically a rule that reflects how the Snapshot for Traveller boxed set handled it with its action point system.

 

[AsenRG]

Actually

View attachment 79464
I am not picking on you, but I am using your mention to once again share this Classic Traveller reference I made. It is designed to be printed front and back and then folded to form a little booklet. The only house rule I have in there is one handling minor actions. It is basically a rule that reflects how the Snapshot for Traveller boxed set handled it with its action point system.

And I'm using this post of yours to express hope that your next project would be titled "How to build a SF sandbox", and feature a Cepheus-based variant as a stretch goal...

 

[robertsconley]

So I don't quite follow Matt's Four Zen moments.

First off I started out with SPI and Avalon Hill wargames in 6th grade, so I was used to detailed rule systems. However at the same time, also because of that, I expected the detail to be accurate. Not necessarily realistic for example SPI's Swords & Sorcery, Lord of the Rings, or Freedom in the Galaxy. But accurate and consistent to whatever is the wargame is about.

So this carried over to me playing AD&D 1e and my frustrations with it eventually led switching to Fantasy Hero in the mid 80s and GURPS in the late 80s.

My frustration with AD&D was due to the fact when I refereed, I asked my players to describe what they are doing first and then roll second. I had too many debates where the player thought the situation was X and just started rolling. I would have to say "Wait a minute, it is not X."

This led to fair amount of arguments being high schoolers finally we just started hammering on describe, wait, and then roll in order to avoid the bullshit.

While I stumbled onto that by accident it has served me well up to the present.

First Zen Moment: Rulings, not Rules
Describe, Wait, and then Roll is basically a concrete procedure implementing the above. However for Rob Conley the high schooler, a detailed set of rules like Fantasy Hero was a godsend because I could use it for a reference to figure out how to make a ruling. Even back then, if something was stupid, i.e., not accurate (or realistic depending on the situation), I and my friends would say fuck that and come up with a different way of handling it. But other than that, having a detailed set of rules cut down on the arguments and made my job as a referee easier. Especially since I was 50% deaf.

Second Zen Moment: Player Skill, not Character Abilities
Players like to do things outside of combat and spellcasting, and want their characters to be better at those things. For me, where player skill comes into play is in tactics and strategy. When I played Panzer Blitz, I wanted to figured out what I had to do to command a WW2 Company. My friends and I weren't interested in the nuts and bolts of driving a Tiger tank or how to fire a 88mm Artillery piece. We needed to know what the odds of hitting, and how far and how often we can shoot

The same with D&D and stuff like find traps. Player Skill meant deciding when and where to take the time to Find Traps, but I was find with the actual process being a skill roll. However, I will say that because of my preference for detailed rules. It was a little more detailed then saying I search the 20' by 20' for traps. You had to choose where to search and then I would have you roll.

But if the player said "OK I take my waterskin and empty it out on the floor of the room does it flow anywhere?" Because the players "got it right", there was no roll needed to find the room. So in practice my campaigns had a mix of my approach and Matt's approach.

Finally, the whole describe-then-roll approach I used over the years is the source of my antipathy towards metagame mechanics and RPGs that heavily rely on them.

Third Zen Moment: Heroic, not Superhero
Yes, for me, for my fantasy campaign, I prefer a more heroic, gritty setup. This is why I started with OD&D in the form of Finch's Swords & Wizardry for my Majestic Fantasy RPG rather than AD&D. OD&D's numbers and progression are more grounded then AD&D numbers and progression.

Fourth Zen Moment: Forget "Game Balance."
Yup, but like how I handle Player Skill, it is not an anything-go situation. Instead, I describe (or read up on) the setting and rules I use about handling what character can do within that setting. If the system doesn't cover something, then I will make a ruling based on setting and any resulting "balance" is based on how things are balanced in the setting.

Part of my frustration with AD&D was that often, the players would describe something reasonable that their character could do, and it was hard for me to come up with a ruling that made sense. Now that I understand the history of how D&D was developed, I understand the roots of Armor Class, Hit Points, etc., better. With that knowledge, I can make better rulings with D&D today than I could 40 years ago.

 

[DeadBob]

Dragonlance is 1984, Slavers is 1980. If Slavers is not intended for campaign use, then Dragonlance should not be intended as a campaign either. We do know both were intended for continued, serial, play with recurring characters Which sounds suspiciously like a campaign. They are just not presented as sandbox, a term which is itself anachronistic for the 1970s and 80s.

There has often been more than a little tension between games where players can presumably hare off in any direction and ones where there is assumed to be at least something very basic tying everything together.

Both tend to be held in high regard by RPGers with little thought to the issues and trade-offs involved, particularly on the PC side of the screen.

 

[robertsconley]

And I'm using this post of yours to express hope that your next project would be titled "How to build a SF sandbox", and feature a Cepheus-based variant as a stretch goal...

Well...

How to make a Traveller Sandbox

So you are part of the new Mongoose Traveller revival. Or perhaps you found one of Far Future's Traveller reprints. The core rules are prett...

batintheattic.blogspot.com

Although I don't have a fleshed out example like How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox.

It is my fourth most popular post of all-time.

 

[AsenRG]

Well...

How to make a Traveller Sandbox

So you are part of the new Mongoose Traveller revival. Or perhaps you found one of Far Future's Traveller reprints. The core rules are prett...

batintheattic.blogspot.com

Although I don't have a fleshed out example like How to Make a Fantasy Sandbox.

It is my fourth most popular post of all-time.

View attachment 79467

Yes, and of course I've read those! Did you have any doubts?

I meant "making a book out of them", like you did with the Fantasy Sandbox posts...

Also, pay attention to the Cepheus Engine stretch goal, which is what I thought about while reading your previous post!

 

[lategamer]

That's one way to read the INT stat. If it more represents book learning and memory rather than something closer to cunning then that's different. I played games as described for many years without any conceptual issues, for whatever that's worth.

Doesn’t really matter what it represents.

Smart, experienced players playing an amoeba can get out-of-context advantages.

Another example would be playing a game where a PC is assumed to be appropriately skilled, immersed and playing in real time.

The player is me. Early fifties, working in a pressured job, two kids, amazing wife, sailing hobby, writing a book - playing for three hours every Friday night usually with a couple of drinks in me.

Sure. I’m smart and experienced and imaginative but I’ll also want to just say “my PC is an experienced and skilled operative who learned the name of the dude 5 minutes ago though it was a week for me. They’d remember though i do not”.

Or “there’s no way my character wouldn’t set traps before going to sleep”.

Maybe the idea is to take the best of both. That works. Use my brain when it makes it more fun, use the app skill when it makes it more fun.

 

[AsenRG]

Maybe the idea is to take the best of both. That works. Use my brain when it makes it more fun, use the app skill when it makes it more fun.

Of course, why wouldn't you use both?

 

[Fenris-77]

Doesn’t really matter what it represents.

Smart, experienced players playing an amoeba can get out-of-context advantages.

Another example would be playing a game where a PC is assumed to be appropriately skilled, immersed and playing in real time.

The player is me. Early fifties, working in a pressured job, two kids, amazing wife, sailing hobby, writing a book - playing for three hours every Friday night usually with a couple of drinks in me.

Sure. I’m smart and experienced and imaginative but I’ll also want to just say “my PC is an experienced and skilled operative who learned the name of the dude 5 minutes ago though it was a week for me. They’d remember though i do not”.

Or “there’s no way my character wouldn’t set traps before going to sleep”.

Maybe the idea is to take the best of both. That works. Use my brain when it makes it more fun, use the app skill when it makes it more fun.

The level of 'in character' and the extent to which fortune is used to represent subject matter expertise unavailable to the player differs dramatically from game to game, and from table to table within a given game - there are no one-size answers. Context is also key. Older D&D had no skills, very few rollable abilities, and even rolls against stats were optional. This pretty obviously puts the onus on the player regardless of stats. As various RPGs introduce more and more skills, abilities and subsystems this onus becomes less and less obvious or even desirable to some tables. What an indiviudal or group is happy with rests on a lot more than just the rule systrem in question and I don't think it's something that really admits of good/bad descriptions. Essentially, its whatever ensures that fun and adventure are the end result.

An important point though is that in the context of early examples of play your comment about out of context advantages simply doesn't apply - that was the game then (although your point in bringing up in a more modern context is well taken).

 

[robertsconley]

Also, pay attention to the Cepheus Engine stretch goal, which is what I thought about while reading your previous post!

Maybe I have some preliminary work in that regard.

Spoiler: From the first session

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm going to start referring to you as The Majestic Robert Conley in casual conversation. You should have shirts done up...

 

[lategamer]

An important point though is that in the context of early examples of play your comment about out of context advantages simply doesn't apply - that was the game then (although your point in bringing up in a more modern context is well taken).

I dunno, man. I distinctly remember people saying "My Intelligence is too low, I wouldn't have thought of that".

 

[Fenris-77]

I dunno, man. I distinctly remember people saying "My Intelligence is too low, I wouldn't have thought of that".

Me too, but not in every game or with every group. That was one of those things that seem really divisive at the time when people from various groups were discussing play styles. The fact that intelligence'' in D&D& is split into that rather odd INT/WIS dyad doesn't help matters much as various people tended to interpret that whole thing quite differently.

This is what I meant by the differences from group to group. Some groups were very keen on roleplaying your INT and some took a different view. Neither is better or worse, just different.

 

[lategamer]

This is what I meant by the differences from group to group. Some groups were very keen on roleplaying your INT and some took a different view. Neither is better or worse, just different.

It's fairly frustrating when a player does a spirited roleplay, describing a win-win situation for NPC and themselves with zero risk to the NPC and the GM just says "OK, roll Persuade"

So yeah, less hard and fast rule on it.

 

[AsenRG]

Maybe I have some preliminary work in that regard.

View attachment 79469

View attachment 79470

View attachment 79471View attachment 79472

Spoiler: From the first session

View attachment 79473

You know to let me know when the KS approaches, right?

It's fairly frustrating when a player does a spirited roleplay, describing a win-win situation for NPC and themselves with zero risk to the NPC and the GM just says "OK, roll Persuade"

So yeah, less hard and fast rule on it.

Yes, it does suck!

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".

 

[Fenris-77]

It's fairly frustrating when a player does a spirited roleplay, describing a win-win situation for NPC and themselves with zero risk to the NPC and the GM just says "OK, roll Persuade"

So yeah, less hard and fast rule on it.

Yeah. This is a key area of contestation and argument for both TTRPG design and play. Most stable groups have a "we do it this way" thing going on which then interfaces better or worse with the mechanics of each game they decide to play. I don't mean worse here in the way that the term degenerate play means it (a term I care very little for), but simply worse as in the group habits can push back against the intended design of the mechanics (should that even be obvious in a given game). In this way lot of groups might not even notice that they aren't paying game X as written, and my thought there is that it doesn't matter if they are so long as they are having fun.