>>45368390 It's not going to make you drop everything and immediately start playing DW, but there is something to say for the PbtA gimmick of giving you all the moves your character has/will have/needs (with cross class exceptions, spellbooks etc) on a single pamphlet sized playbook. It just feels neat. I'm actually disappointed when I'm browsing a new PbtA game and discover they've had to do away with the playbook format. (Uncharted Worlds gives you three interchangeable components from two different pools to build a character archetype.)
>Then what makes games old school, just shitty mechanics?
osr mechanics are modular systems designed to address specific in game procedures. For example, d&d has a sophisticated exploration procedure, but if you don't like it, its modular, so you can take it out and replace it. Same thing goes for classes, spells, turning undead, treasure generation, combat, opening doors, etc. Universal systems are invariably shit desu senpai.
>>45368346 Probably the most important thing is the relationship between the person running the game and the players. OSR tends towards a "referee" to allow for innovative solutions to the scenario. Rules-heavy interpretations of this are geared towards tournament play, to iron out the differences between different referees, while rules-light interpretations are perhaps better-suited to social play when all you want from the referee is consistency.
And yes, I know that tournament play is pretty much dead, but there are many things that are dead despite being quite popular.
>>45368429 That's a sweeping and incorrect generalisation. B/X is a touchstone that seems to have a broad appeal, but there are definitely AD&D people out there (on Dragonsfoot, for instance).
>>45369003 >Characters have massive amounts of hit points, so its not challenging I never felt like I had a ton of hitpoints, I think 1d6 or so damage taken in an exchange is about standard in my group with Con + 4/6/8 or 10 for career hit points. Also taking up to 1d10 or 1d12 damage or rolling twice and taking the highest in damage has shown up for boss battles (or particularly risky actions).
>Gimmicky WoW/3.5e style classes (dwarf rune wizard, tiefling shadowblade, goblin rifleman) I haven't seen these, but there is a third party market for playbooks that has people vying for novelty. You don't have to play what you don't want, and the core classes are both familiar and allow enough customisation that you aren't always playing the same Mage/Thief/Ranger etc, (although it certainly pays not to play the same playbook back to back).
This has to be, by far, the stupidest thing I have ever read.
I am not joking. I have read lots of stupid shit over the years. I have read Lanced Jack's posts. I read /pol/. But in all my fucking years, this has to be the absolute singular stupidest fucking thing I have ever read.
>>45369439 You literally typed that the OSR community mostly hates AD&D. Even if you were basing that on /osr/ threads here, my impressions of those threads is quite different - I can certainly recall people talking about playing a B/X base and pulling down parts of AD&D without getting told that they're making a huge mistake. I can even remember posts about AD&D proper that didn't draw any heat.
In short, the hate is just in your head.
Now, it's not a bad thing to be an outlier in a community. Sometimes what's a minority opinion today will capture tomorrow's majority. But living in a state of denial is bad for you. Try to accept that rational people can (and do!) differ with you. It's for the best, believe me.
Well no, Dungeon World is a bizarre narrative nu-RPG, and as legitimately not-OSR as any other narrativist game -- there's no point of reference you can use to call it OSR. Its just reskinned Apocalypse World.
Tends to be 1st ed BCEMI/BX dnd inspired things like Lamentations of the Flame Princes, Adventurer Conqueror King, Beyond The Wall, Dungeon Crawl Classics, Red Tide, Whitehack, White Star, stuff like that. Sometimes people have arguments about if it should be things that are old like Boot Hill, Traveller, marvel Super Heroes, etc. or just DnD stuff, and/or if it includes newer games that are inspired by but have largely different rules that try to evoke similar moods and themes.
A lot of osr is d20 based and uses some form of thaco/AC, and doesn't have a single unified mechanic like 2d6pbta. That's about it. World of Dungeons is dope, its about all the Dungeon World needed to be.
The spell list of world of dungeons is a bit light, but you can plug in/modify/steal spell lists from pretty much any osr. The idea is that they're modular and you're suppose to pick and chose parts you want from different games.
Take one of the Basic dnd models like Keep On The Borderlands and run a 1-shot with World Of Dungeons. Works fine.
If you want to be a total asshole, use it for Death Frost Doom.
Well, there's only a very, very distant similarity between generic rules lite narrative games like that and OSR. You could say its similar to OSR, but you could also say its similar to World of Darkness or whatever and that WoD is a rules lite narrative game, or that owod should be counted as OSR.
Ultimately, it boils down to the idea that words mean things. Its not at all old school, not at all a revival of anything pertinent to the old school, etc.
World of dungeons is specifically not a generic any more than B/X is if you're super concerned about words meaning things. Don't like dungeon world, don't think its very osr, requires too much work to blend easily with other osr materials. Do like World of Dungeons. Think it is, its easy to convert, descriptivism>prescriptivism, ORS is a gradient rather than yes/no, etc.
>>45367304 Because OSR is bad and archaic. God forbid they play anything new. They're perfectly happy playing ADnD for the rest of their lives. Why innovate or try anything new when TSR already did it (poorly)!
Dungeon World is one of the best one shot rpgs out there. And certainly my favorite game to introduce people to the hobby. It's a fun little system that incorporates a lot of the tropes of old dungeon crawl games, so references from more seasoned players aren't lost on them. However I don't think it works very well for longer games, but it does its job.
As for DW, we're coming off a couple of Pathfinder AP's, but we're all old-school gamers (like, some of us played 1st ed. in high school). I thought I'd get into some more role-play oriented gaming and our first session of DW feels very old school, with no battlemats or figs or whatever.
>>45370234 I wonder how you'd react if you knew the OSR Wikipedia page listed Dungeon World as an OSR game. Perhaps now I'll be lucky enough to find out.
Seriously, though, I don't have any agenda related to the obviously bait OP here. I just wanted to point out that the OSR's origins and continued direction favor the principles behind basic D&D a lot more than those behind AD&D. AD&D material isn't unpopular, but by and large standardized tournament play is not something the OSR is known for.
>>45371090 Well, the spell system is more Mage the Ascension than anything OSR.
Like I said, yes, you can say absolutely anything is OSR. That's fine. It is however as new school as you can get.
Liking or disliking something has nothing to do with whether its OSR; I like my cat and my wife, but they aren't old school. I even like WotC editions, and they're far more old school than World of Dungeons is.
>I wonder how you'd react if you knew the OSR Wikipedia page listed Dungeon World as an OSR game.
The exact same way I'd react to noticing Darkest Dungeon (which I bought btw) is listed as a roguelike: that its a cute opinion.
>I just wanted to point out that the OSR's origins and continued direction favor the principles behind basic D&D a lot more than those behind AD&D.
Well, while what is/isn't OSR is anyone's opinion, here your facts are plain wrong. OSRIC predates Basic Fantasy, Labyrinth Lord, and Basic Fantasy, period. You can certainly argue that B/x is a popular contingent of OSR enthusiasts, and nobody will fault that. You certainly can't use the origin argument for AD&D being less OSR, though.
>large standardized tournament play
I... what? OD&D is said to be played with 20 people per referee right in the book, what does that have to do with anything?
>The meme that old school -> rules lite -> narrativistic horseshit is OSR has got to die.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "old school". You seem to think it means AD&D (1e), which I guess is a common view of things.
But for plenty of people, referencing old school play means original D&D, or "0e", if you will, from 1974. This makes plenty of sense, because why even call something "old school" if it isn't very different than the "current school"? I mean, 1e is pretty similar to 5e and others.
And if someone is talking about 0e mechanics instead of the 1e you're beating like a dead horse, then the rules light, narrative perspective is exactly dead-on.
>>45371461 >I guess it depends on what you mean by "old school". You seem to think it means AD&D (1e),
No, it generally means pre WotC A/D&D (not so much S&P and kits), and to a degree other period games.
>This makes plenty of sense, because why even call something "old school" if it isn't very different than the "current school"? I mean, 1e is pretty similar to 5e and others.
How can you argue, except through ignorance, that 1e is similar to "current school?" The monsters of 1e and pretty much all OSR are most similar to each other.
If you want to argue old school = original 3 white boxes, then old school is Chainmail compatibility first and a gigantic question mark as far as the other combat system. If you want to argue old school = white box period, then well, AD&D's weapon vs armor, damage vs medium and vs large, etc. was right in there from the beginning.
objection which is multiclassing; OD&D, 1e, and 2e all have a similar thing where you can, if you have unreasonably high stats, stop one class and go to a new one. If you squint and strain, its kinda similar to 3e/5e multiclassing, though the whys and wherefores are very different (noticeably in 3e/5e this borks your XP progression).
>>45371428 > Well, while what is/isn't OSR is anyone's opinion, here your facts are plain wrong. OSRIC predates Basic Fantasy, Labyrinth Lord, and Basic Fantasy, period.
OSRIC was a project by Matt Finch, who abandoned it halfway complete to go write Swords & Wizardry and wax poetic about how you should be making up bits and pieces of your game rules all over the shop as you play.
Meanwhile, TSR from the AD&D years made no qualms about telling anyone and everyone that if you modified AD&D in any way you were no longer playing AD&D full stop. They did this because AD&D was a product meant to standardize rules for tournament play. Well, the OSR has no tournament scene, and even OSRIC has a ton of changes from by the book AD&D. This means the OSR's AD&D book isn't published AD&D, OSR's game playing habits aren't published AD&D, and Matt Finch's exhortations to make up bits and bobs of your game as you go certainly aren't published AD&D.
We might try to ignore the publisher's intentions of how AD&D ought to be played, but we can only do this because in actual fact AD&D was usurped by a legion of basic D&D players who wanted Basic D&D 2: Electric Boogaloo, as mentioned in the Labyrinth Lord AEC foreword. So if the OSR is about AD&D as it was actually played instead of how it was published, but AD&D as it was actually played was really just an expansion pack for basic D&D, then the OSR wasn't really ever about AD&D now was it? It contained plenty of AD&D material, but the principles of the movement have always been decidedly more basic.
And for the record, picking OSRIC as the start of the OSR is fairly arbitrary. We could just as easily have picked Castles & Crusades, which was decidedly more basic than advanced in its intent and to boot was in limited release a few years before OSRIC was published.
Ok, don't care, not relevant to the discussion. I was just using it as the earliest example of an old school revival product that readily came to mind.
>Meanwhile, TSR from the AD&D years made no qualms about telling anyone and everyone that if you modified AD&D in any way you were no longer playing AD&D full stop.
Even less relevant, pertinent only to 1e, and undermined that Gygax (the prime advocate of 'you must use it as is') absolutely modified it all the time. By the time of 2e, the idea of AD&D as a standardized system was completely dead and buried and no matter how autistic you are you cannot use all the supplements together (yes I've tried).
You continue on your weird tirade against the tournament strawman. Quit it.
>So if the OSR wis about AD&D as it was actually played instead of how it was published
You are very invested in this strawmawn, even Gygax didn't play AD&D RAW. Nobody knows if anyone ever did, or if it is possible.
>then the OSR wasn't really ever about AD&D now was it?
Chronologically, it was about AD&D first, and cloning/reviving other systems second.
>could just as easily have picked Castles & Crusades,
If we were talking about banal new school d20 horseshit, we would be marking 3e as the beginning of the old school revolution. Its just another D&D ripoff that goes nowhere other than to make saving throws even more fucking unmanageable.
The monsters may be, iirc, fairly OSR-y though.
I recommend you collect your thoughts, drop your retarded tournament strawman and give it another go!
>>45367304 You have to be new here if you havn't realised "It's popular therefore it sucks!" is pretty much /tg/'s rally cry. At first people here loved the hell out of it but then it became popular so hating on it is cruise control for cool.
Gotta rack up them 4chan hivemind brownie points somehow.
I miss the days when we could have actual Dungeon World threads where you could do storytimes, discuss supplements, dissect third party classes, share custom moves, and stuff like that. Now the only kind of DW thread we can have is one filled up with obnoxious people who insist on telling everyone it's shit, over and over, and won't stop posting.
>>45373609 To be fair, do unto others as they do unto you. DW people are very aggressive about how your tastes are shit and how you should play DW instead, because its mechanics are totes better. DW fans were viewed amicably until they got frustrated with the lack of converts, and then began, like OP, aggressively pushing the idea that MY TASTES = objectively superior YOUR TASTES = shit.
Hell, I found DW interesting up until they switched to this tactic.
>>45369003 >Autistic fan base Worst argument ever. Every man, woman and child gets accused of being autistic on 4chan these days. It's like saying the fanbase consists of fags. It's meaningless and just boils down to 'fanbase I don't like'. If anything, narrativist games should scare real autistic tendencies away, due to the lack of strict rules and number crunching and the focus on creative improvisation.
>>45374471 Move is a holdover term from Apocalypse World.
The easiest way to think of it is - you say what you do, as long as it makes sense, just like you're playing any other RPG. So if you're in a bar, you might say "I order a drink", but you wouldn't say "I grow wings and float into space" because that doesn't fit the game world that you've all agreed upon (aka in the rules, 'the fiction').
Sometimes what you do (e.g. "I try to run the goblin through with my sword" or "I try to backflip and dodge the arrows fired at me") interacts with the rules, and that's called 'triggering a move' (HackNSlash and Defy Danger, respectively).
It's almost like... that's how you play an OSR game. You describe what you do and then see if it needs a roll.
>>45368637 One of the big complaints about D&D4 was that a PC spent most of a fight doing the same maneuver over and over again, and yet a game that compresses a supposedly complex individual down to a small number of maneuvers, sorry,"Moves", that never change is somehow a good design.
>>45376948 Yes, but the point is that if someone is saying 'That's how you play an OSR game, you do what you would do in any other RPG', then that means DW is just as much like an OSR as any other RPG.
>>45367304 I thnk Dungeon World is best suited for teaching idiots who's colesest thing to experience with a ttrpg is skyrim, how things work, but even then the GM should keep the players and more importantly the insubstantial rules on a tighter leash than the book advises.
>>45377766 Honestly, this. I hate DW, but it has its uses. It's just overused and being used incorrectly, the same way you can overuse and misuse methadone by giving it to people not dealing with a narcotics addiction.
>>45373126 I think you are the one strawmanning, friendo.
Behold, my original argument:
> the OSR's origins and continued direction favor the principles behind basic D&D a lot more than those behind AD&D.
The fact that OSRIC is meant as a carbon copy (a bad one, it turns out) of AD&D has very little to do with the fact that people in the OSR were, from the beginning, playing D&D-alikes using the principles found in basic D&D and NOT the ones found in AD&D. They were not playing the game the way AD&D was intended to be played, but instead the way it was actually played - like basic D&D with some new content.
The fact that you don't understand my argument at all is fucking astounding. It's literally one sentence long.
> If we were talking about banal new school d20 horseshit, we would be marking 3e as the beginning of the old school revolution.
OK I'll just go tell everyone Castles & Crusades isn't an OSR game hahahaha
I don't know, I never did that, and I saw that start happening about the time the trolls began showing up and telling me "all you DW fans" do this. I've even called some of these faggots on their overblown DW pushing and had them turn around and say they were doing it "ironically" and then start posting those anti-DW meme images.
I think you've been getting baited. You should be careful to differentiate between Dungeon World and people who claim to be Dungeon World fans on the internet. And don't let some obnoxious dude get under your skin, whatever reason he may have.
>>45378172 >>"Roll hack and slash." >>"3." >>"Okay, he hits you for 2 damage. Do you attack again?" >>"Sure." >">Okay, roll hack and slash again."
Yeah, that's exactly the wrong way to run it. You should basically never even say "hack and slash" unless someone has an ability relating to it. Everyone should describe what they are doing and what's happening, not what mechanics you are using.
Yeah WoD is pretty neat, and some of its hacks are excellent. I prefer DW to WoD, though, because WoD is rather incomplete, being something John Harper put out as a fun gag for the DW kickstarter. Having no rules for combat, and almost no rules for magic, and the weird skill system doesn't really work for me. (Great, you have the skill? Now your results become success, partial success, and ... more partialler success? And I have to figure out what the third one is that makes it different from the second one, great.) I also think the HP system is really cool, but at the same time, it adds HP bloat back into the system, where a high level character has far more health than a low level one, so I can't throw nasty stuff at mixed level parties and know the 1st level guy is going to have a fair shot.
>>45378300 >You should basically never even say "hack and slash" unless someone has an ability relating to it.
I thought that was only GM moves?
Whenever I've watched or listen to actual plays (even a couple by Adam Koebel), the GM has no reservations about saying, "Okay, roll hack and slash."
Doesn't it matter in case, like you said, there is some mechanic related to that particular move?
Although, I think either the book or the fan-made guide says that it's good to start out this way, eventually the players will understand that they have to roll hack and slash or defy danger without calling them that.
>>45378315 Yeah the skills seem a bit wonky. A decent idea, but I'd like some more explanation even if it meant going over two pages.
Some elaboration on speeds and special abilities would be nice too.
I guess for HP the lack of combat and monster rules could work to your advantage. Either use DW monsters or create your own, mix up groups of high-powered and low-powered enemies so everyone has a dance partner.
The GM should never say his moves' names, yeah. It ruins the atmosphere to let the players see the gears turning behind the curtain. But players shouldn't just reach for the name of the move like they were pressing a button, either, for the same reason. But it's not a hard and fast rule, because when they do something in the fiction, there's often going to be wiggle room as to which move covers that. The players and DM will sometimes have to discuss whether what Dave just did was a Hack'n'Slash, a Defy Danger, or this one class move that he's got.
Yeah, that's exactly how it works, with the caveat that the goblin has to be fighting back on the player's level. Figuring out which move is triggered is down to interpreting the "trigger", which is the bold text at the start of the move's rules, and the trigger for Hack'n'Slash is "when you engage an enemy in melee combat" so it doesn't come into play if for example, the goblin's cowering or running away. In that case the player just deals his damage.
One nice consequence of this is that you can bend or twist the interpretation of a move's trigger to fit the fluff of your world, and conversely, talk to you players about how to interpret a particular trigger, setting the ground rules of your universe. Refluffing on the fly, as it were. This is also where fictional positioning comes in, and the way the fluff controls mechanics in a PbtA game.
The GM might decide it's not hack and slash but actually defy danger. But Dungeon World seems more lax and cooperative about things like that, as long as you talk through it. I guess that depends on having good players.
>>45378568 Would you let a player simply deal their damage if they had a sword and the goblin only had a shortbow? It's not like the goblin can block, although he could punch or something.
>>45378064 >I think you are the one strawmanning, friendo.
Nopers. The guy I was responding to had a totally fragile argument -- one based off just one thing, that AD&D = tournament scene RPG with unchangeable rules, which is absurd since A) Gygax didn't play it by RAW, B) its not clear what RAW is with the initiative system, C) that is wholly limited to 1e, not 2e in any case, and D) nobody here was trying to defend tournament nonsense.
>were, from the beginning, playing D&D-alikes using the principles found in basic D&D and NOT the ones found in AD&D.
First, this isn't relevant in any way -- second these imaginary principles aren't to be found anywhere IN the AD&D books. As far as optional rules, most optional rules I'm aware of in pre WotC D&D are, in fact, optional rules listed in AD&D books.
>The fact that you don't understand my argument at all is fucking astounding.
I understand your argument completely, which is why I keep, REPEATEDLY, telling you its a retarded strawman. Your argument is "AD&D is unchangeable tournament rules, D&D is flexible homebrew shit, therefore OSRIC isn't AD&D," which is... not supported by the books. The person who held that attitude was a guy who... didn't play AD&D as RAW.
Remember, however, that you're completely wrong on the idea that AD&D isn't supposed to be changed. While there are no AD&D books saying that you can't change the rules, there are tons of AD&D books saying you can, up to and including the 1e AD&D DMG, which among other things notes you can do whatever you want with the saving throw system, that you can treat PC deaths as serious injuries instead, etc. etc.
>>45379057 >Original argument: "OSR originally embraced basic D&D's principles more than AD&D's basic principles."
Nope. When you don't know what's going on, follow the reply chain. >>45368036 >That's not what makes a game old school. AD&D is old school, and it's not simple. >>45368429 >The OSR community mostly hates AD&D's autistically complicated rules familiar. By and large they prefer basic.
(nothing about "basic principles) Here it had at least two responses: >>45369040 >>45370234 The general reaction was the same. Still no sign of 'basic principles', much less basic principles that never made it to print. The anti AD&D people had two distinct logical fallacies involved: >>45371461 Strawman "you seem to think that it means AD&D (1e)," which died.
>>45379348 > Nope. When you don't know what's going on, follow the reply chain.
Mate let me break that shit down.
>>45368036 > OSR games aren't necessarily simple, AD&D is an OSR game and it's not simple.
>>45368429 > But most OSR people in general don't play AD&D by the book, they prefer simpler games.
>>45370234 > The OSR people on 4chan, and me personally, really like AD&D, though. And I suspect you are trying to subversively claim that DW is an OSR game by equivocating rules light basic D&D with rules light narrativist games.
>>45371160 > No I don't actually care about whether DW is an OSR game or not. I may have said it wrong before, but I am saying that the OSR movement prefers the freewheeling ethos of basic D&D to the more authoritarian one of AD&D, and that this has always been the case.
This is where the person who I'm assuming is you put forward the present issue:
>>45371428 > That is wrong. OSRIC was the first OSR game, therefore AD&D was the origin of the OSR.
Right, so problem 1 is that guy 1 said two different things, so it's hard to know which one is being responded to.
If it's the first thing, then OSRIC being the first OSR game isn't even relevant to whether or not most OSR people prefer BD&D or AD&D style rules.
If it's the second thing, then we get -
1. OSRIC is the first OSR game. 2. The first OSR game represents the OSR's original philosophy. 3. Therefore, OSRIC is representative of the OSR's original philosophy. 4. OSRIC is AD&D. 5. Therefore AD&D is representative of the OSR's original philosophy.
It's a valid argument, but not a sound one. Premise 1 is false since C&C is the first OSR game.
Premise 4 is also false: OSRIC has many changes from AD&D, several of which substantively change the way it was meant to be run.
Premise 2 is not necessarily true either. Finch expressed that OSRIC was made to provide a legal ref doc, not as a statement of philosophy. To him, OSR = an OD&D attitude first and foremost.
>>45380373 Ah, I see where you got confused and mixed up, you projected that
>>45371428 (You) >therefore AD&D was the origin of the OSR
whereas it is instead
>you can't use an argument on the basis of Old School Revival's origins when the first revival of an old school system was an attempt to revive AD&D, probably as a legal pretense
(snipped some pointlessly inflammatory language out)
But basically, you can draw a distinction between OSR that is a revival of old school systems, typically used as a lingua franca (OSR stuff from OSRIC onward) and C&C/DW/5e/etc that is intended to recreate the old school feel using brand new rules.
The main reason the latter doesn't fly well in OSR threads, for example, is that there's just plain not much to talk about; most of the OSR family functions off this lingua franca element, and there's no common frame of reference for when DW/C&C/5e/etc. shows up in OSR threads.
>>45382874 "Narrativist" refers to RPGs where mechanics run off your idea of the 'narrative' (ie hit points in general, solos/minions/dailies etc all have their justification being in the narrative, luck points typically, etc)
"Gamist" is logic intended for making a good game, not necessarily realism or telling a story.
"Simulationist" is logic based off your understanding of the system.
Its a VERY incomplete and biased paradigm but I find it to be useful
Narrativist mechanics involve contests over control of the story and focus on creating cohesive arcs. Apocalypse World's partial success mechanic being a good example.
Gamist mechanics resemble board games, have rules and constraints that create contests of strategy/manipulation of those constraints. A good example would be 4th edition dnd's grid map and how abilities interact with it, or using a d20 in dnd because that's how the game is played more than anything else.
Simulationist mechanics attempt to recreate real world probabilities and outcomes in tabletop rpgs. An example of this would be the hit location table in GURPS that increases the difficulty of hitting different body parts and the resulting effects.
Doesn't cover everything, is to a large degree abstraction, but can be useful to give a rough idea of what an rpg or group's interests are.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.