Why OSR?

It's 100% nostalgia. The point of those games is to use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing, to provide complex mechanics that most people won't use or will haphazardly apply from memory because that's how thing worked in the fictional good old days.

>>50723514
>Stars Without Number
Is that the one with the awful 'phase level' ship combat system?

They just seem like 'lazy RPGs' that people latch on to because they want something other than D&D.

Don't these games also have the kind of silly GM tool of "now I'mma do something BAD to you in return, mmkay?" It's just not fluid.

>>50723514
The appeal is that I can get players to it that aren't neckbeards only interested in "builds" or hipsters only interested in "the narrative".
The rules are easy to understand for players (and might be a bit trickier for DMs depending on what system is used), and the thing then that makes players stick out from other players is their ability to imagine and to problem solve.
This leads to better game sessions with less arguing about rules, less trouble finding interesting players and less bullshit that doesn't pertain to the game being played.
Go to /osrg/ and see how many more gameable ideas are written about per thread compared to any other general.

>>50723592
>Go to /osrg/ and see how many more gameable ideas are written about per thread compared to any other general.
You mean they use the thread as "mini-/tg/, talk about campaigns and character fluff and stuff." No biggie, /pfg/ does that too. It doesn't suddenly mean the games are good.

>>50723592

How is any of that a trait of the systems themselves, though? Most of that seems really vague and ephemeral.

File: d00a81449ad6ea3c13c19e5388dd8866.png (374KB, 600x812px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 600x812px

>>50723592

Why are imagination and problem-solving limited to OSR games?

Why is it only OSR that shuts away the "build" people and the "narrative" people?

>>50723631
>Why are imagination and problem-solving limited to OSR games?
It's not limited to, but it's easier to hone with OSR than say, Pathfinder.

>Why is it only OSR that shuts away the "build" people and the "narrative" people?
I'm sure there are other games that do that as well, but where are their communities?

>>50723625
What do you mean? Are you saying that, for example, "easy to understand rules" isn't a trait to the system itself?

>>50723610
No, that's not what I mean. There's a difference between "campaign/character fluff" and "gameable ideas".

>>50723733

>What do you mean? Are you saying that, for example, "easy to understand rules" isn't a trait to the system itself?

Not in the OSR context, as far as I've seen. The rules when you actually read them always seem pretty complex, with the simplicity coming from how the GM explains them to the players, often simplifying them on the fly and doing most of the system work under the hood.

>>50723764
You have to give me an example here, because this does absolutely not sound like any OSR game I've been in or seen.

>>50723631

Because 'build' and 'narrative' people HAVE games that suit their needs.

OSR is a mix of nostalgia, and wanting something that isn't quite a storygame, and isn't quite a buildgame.

That's fine, and there's room for lots of innovation and improvement in the OSR genre, when people aren't busy making cashgrab rehashes of ancient versions of D&D that should die.

File: 303bd827b2afc2105cac3558489e685c.png (436KB, 669x1100px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 669x1100px

>>50723733
>>50723764
>>50723825
You're basing your points on the community of the games rather than any intrinsic quality of the games themselves.

And that's irrelevant for discussing how good a game is, because "the community" won't matter if you want to try to bring an OSR game to your friends.

There's basically nothing about the games themselves that attract this kind of community other than nostalgia.

>>50723838

Flame Princess is a pretty easy sell to most groups, dude.

And it's also generally easy to convince older groups to play OSR games, too.

You have to understand the era when OSR was at its most vibrant: It was at a time when oldfag Gen X types who'd put their lives on hold to raise families and focus on careers were getting their free time back.

>rules-heavy game's mountains of weirdly specific, nitty gritty rules and disjointed subsystems.

On what fucking planet?

>>50723858

To be fair, that -is- sort of the sore sticking point of AD&D that people don't like: different resolution systems for different things, charts, and subsystems.

But it wasn't ever really that bad unless you used all the optional skill rules and supplements.

>>50723838
We were talking about appeal, right? Not about the intrinsic quality of OSR games.
Also just because I'm interested, which OSR games have you been exposed to?
I can also tell you that I don't use OSR because of nostalgia, I started D&D with 3e and mostly played BRP when I was younger.

>>50723536
>Don't these games also have the kind of silly GM tool of "now I'mma do something BAD to you in return, mmkay?" It's just not fluid.

That's PbtA, if I'm understanding you correctly.

>>50723885

"Your character is now gay against his will! Now you're forced to roleplay out your shameful thoughts of why you'd let another man cum inside your ass!"

This is the authentic PbtA experience as intended by its creator.

>>50723877
Almost nobody in the OSR scene uses AD&D, and I'm pretty sure that nobody has ever actually played AD&D with RAW anyway.

>>50723522
There are quite a lot of people (including me) who are fans of OSR games without having played the originals.
So... no?

>>50723885
>>50723891

I'm not sure. There's these 'narrativist'-style games where it's like "you can do that, but it'll have a consequence that were gonna talk about and agree too, but it's up to YOU player".

Maybe Stars Without Number and Blades in the Dark? Other stuff, perhaps. It just seems really... awkward, you know. Like you're stopping the game every little bit to negotiate something, where the GM is some wet noodle.

Loose simulation is much preferable, with some cool build paths.

>>50723891
>t. Virt

>>50723915
Well, it's definitely not core to OSR.

Nostalgia. Also, it's like the (il)logical conclusion of the grognard mindset. Everything new is worse -> everything old is better -> oldest is bestest. People who weren't even alive for 1st edition D&D but turned grognard because of 4th edition, for example, will often go the OSR route.

>>50724028
It's due to the dark ages, and the fantasy based on it. During the dark ages, everything older WAS better, because they had destroyed classic civilization and technology.

During the classics however, older was shitty tribal stuff, so they worked on the future. Modern times is just transition to that mood now.

>>50723514
>They seem like the worst of both worlds:

Alternatively, the best of both worlds.

You call it rules-heavy, but ambiguous about the things that matter.

The exact same criticism can be levied against 3rd, 4th and 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons (Henceforth: D20).

D20 has, if anything, MORE rules than OSR but they're irrelevant bullshit rules like "how far can you jump with a standing start? What if you start running?" and the jumping distance is demarcated in feet while the game otherwise takes place almost exclusively in 5-foot increments.

And yet it has NO RULES WHATSOEVER about how much your jumping distance changes if you carry extra weight unless you happen to break the across an arbitrary weight barrier that, for some god damn reason, is more affected by your size and nr.# legs than whether your strenght is two points higher - the only part of the jumping rules that would actually matter, namely "how they are affected by loot gathering."

>>50724158
>And yet it has NO RULES WHATSOEVER about how much your jumping distance changes if you carry extra weight unless you happen to break the across an arbitrary weight barrier that, for some god damn reason, is more affected by your size and nr.# legs than whether your strenght is two points higher - the only part of the jumping rules that would actually matter, namely "how they are affected by loot gathering."

Are you seriously saying this is on the same level of ambiguity as OSR games' thick rules that still manage to be ridiculously vague?

>>50724246
>OSR
>thick rules
Do you even know what OSR games are?
Since that other anon gave a great example of weird rule focus in D20, how about you do the same for an OSR game?

>>50724329
Godbound, the whole faction ruleset. It looks plausible on the surface, but it's full of stupid shit like farming hamlets being only slightly weaker than major empires' capital cities.

There's, like, half a chapter on that shit.

>>50724329
There's the old argument about elves and the chance of spotting ambush, which some people consider to be weird (if not bad) ruling since it exists in such a "legal vacuum". Elves have a 3-in-6 chance of spotting an ambush but you never know what anyone else' chance is, so the choice is between ruling nobody else CAN in the first place or that there's some sort of hidden mechanic in place OR that the GMs just making shit up as they go along, in which case rules are pointless anyway (in fact, you could argue that the elves are in a disadvantage in this scenario because absurdly, in any other situation the ambush would be detected or not based on the GMs whim, but it's not like they'd change that just because a dice was rolled - elves have a chance to FAIL whereas none existed before).

Or the whole argument about Thief skills and whether or not (and how, if so) other characters can try sneaking into places.

>>50724359
I'll take your word for it that it's bad since I haven't read Godbound. Just be aware that Godbound is generally considered to be on the fringe of OSR and is never discussed in /osrg/.

>>50724360
> Elves have a 3-in-6 chance of spotting an ambush but you never know what anyone else' chance is
This is not true in most retroclones. Which version of D&D had this oversight?

>Or the whole argument about Thief skills and whether or not (and how, if so) other characters can try sneaking into places.
In most retroclones, all classes have a chance to successfully sneak but the thief has a higher chance of successfully sneaking. What is the problem here?

>>50724360
>There's the old argument about elves and the chance of spotting ambush, which some people consider to be weird (if not bad) ruling since it exists in such a "legal vacuum". Elves have a 3-in-6 chance of spotting an ambush but you never know what anyone else' chance is, so the choice is between ruling nobody else CAN in the first place or that there's some sort of hidden mechanic in place OR that the GMs just making shit up as they go along, in which case rules are pointless anyway (in fact, you could argue that the elves are in a disadvantage in this scenario because absurdly, in any other situation the ambush would be detected or not based on the GMs whim, but it's not like they'd change that just because a dice was rolled - elves have a chance to FAIL whereas none existed before).

I have no clue what you're talking about.

>Or the whole argument about Thief skills and whether or not (and how, if so) other characters can try sneaking into places.

Depends on the system of course, but with LotFP, yes they can.

>>50724406
>Just be aware that Godbound is generally considered to be on the fringe of OSR and is never discussed in /osrg/.
How fast the goalposts move.

It explicitly uses OSR rules, to the point where in any godbound general, when we try and talk about rules, we get a horde of faggots screaming about how the rules don't matter, its OSR, you can just change it.

>>50724426
It's just 2hu shitting up the Godbound threads, isn't it?

>>50724426
Well shit, I don't know what to tell you. OSR games are made every day, of course some will be shit. Doesn't mean OSR or all OSR games are shit.

>>50724452
>Actively try to talk about the rules
>Get screamed down by faggots who can't stand it when you talk about their precious system in the 'wrong way'.

No, he doesn't shit it up. Faggots like you do.

>>50724452
It's a combination of Colette being an autist and some anons being fags bringing the discussion to the lowest possible level within 15 posts of Colette's first post. There are valid points on both sides in that beginning part, but then it's just shitflinging for the rest of the thread.

>>50724474
>Actively try to talk about the rules
You mean
>Actively try to shit up the thread with munchkin powergaming and going against the game's purpose

You know Kevin Crawford, the game's author, BTFO him for being a munchkin earlier, right?

https://plus.google.com/104126387857957102090/posts/AftsJTaGdhS

>>50724512

>The games purpose isn't to be a good, well designed game

OSR in a nutshell

>>50724512
Thank you for proving my point about why the OSR fanbase is such a sack of shit so succinctly.

>>50724535
Why would you tolerate powergaming in ANY game?

>>50724426
This is like saying all D20 games are inherently shit, and then point to some edgelords homebrew as proof, and when people contest your proof you go "WELL WELL WELL look at those goalposts move".

>>50724544
>Talking about the rules
>Finding their break-points and explaining the issues to others
>Faggots scream and throw a fit about this
>Somehow the first guy is meant to be the one in the wrong
To change the rules, first you really should have a grounding in understanding them, but I can understand how that's utterly beyond you.

>>50724525
>Edna
>With regards to #1, how much "mechanical weight" does being in a lineage have? Is the entire Fact dedicated to having the lineage, or does the Fact still have plenty of room to support other abilities?
>In other words, can I write, "My character is a Kalay knight of X order," and receive the perks of the Kalay lineage and all of the benefits of X knightly order?

>Kevin Crawford
>Edna, you're trying to deduce the most mechanically optimal ways to achieve the values you've selected as most important for your PCs, whatever the grounding for that selection. I don;t agree that you've got the values right in the absolute, but hey, it's your PC in your imagined campaign, so you're right for all the values that matter.
>Unfortunately, Godbound will not work for you. If you're trying to get absolute Word of God rulings indicating that your GM must or must not permit you to do X in chargen via a complex series of Fact choices, attribute assignment sequences, and tacit assumptions, it's not going to happen. There is too much that is objectively contingent on specific campaigns, groups, and players to give blanket assertions about these things. You cannot run a demigod-level campaign with world-shaking protagonists without having a healthy relationship between the PCs and the GM, one where they're on the same approximate page as to what fits the game they're sharing. The rules as written provide the basic framework for this and answer the questions that are most likely to come up for most campaigns. Everything else is and must be supplied by the group.
>I would encourage you to look up Exalted 3e, as it has a much more rigorous mechanical framework that a lot of people are enjoying greatly.

>Edna
>That is a terrible dismissive answer to someone interested in your game (and to someone who has already set aside Exalted 3e in favor of Godbound)

>Edna
>Also, I do not even have a GM to ask in this case. I am inquiring to settle an argument in a thread

Why this?

>>50724576
But who was in the right?

File: 1463261340983.jpg (180KB, 517x768px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 517x768px

>>50724576
>2hu goes around bothering the dev to prove himself right in an argument on a Mongolian Horse-Riding board
This is some comedy gold right here.

>>50724576

Wow, that's pathetic on the devs part. Even if it's something to be worked out between a group the rules should still have some kind of solid guideline. Otherwise what's the point in the system?

>>50724604
It's a disrespectfully presumptuous answer.
1. Kevin assumes the guy hasn't already looked into Exalted 3e.
2. Kevin assumes the guy wants to use Kevin's answers to bully GMs (he doesn't, he's just trying to settle arguments in threads).

It's ridiculous if the culture of the OSR crowd and authors is to dismiss any analysis of rules (thick and heavy OSR rules with tons of ambiguities!) with "Fuck that, let the GM decise."

>>50724621
>>50724618
My feelings as well, and that's why I'm rolling my eyes so hard at all of this.

>>50724621
I think this proves more that Godbound isn't (or at least can't handle) being part of the OSR scene. I haven't read it but I'm going to guess that a lot that is in it goes against the OSR spirit. Even the art style clashes with it.
Just so you guys know, there's more to OSR than just sometimes being laissez-faire with rulings.

>thread complaining about OSR
>focus exclusively on Sine Nomine
As someone who enjoys playing Sine Nomine games, I'll admit they're not exactly the pinnacles of good game design, even among OSR games. I mostly stick to them because they're extremely lightweight and because my group refuses to go back to Traveller after the last time, so if I want my space opera it's SWN or nothing.

>>50724672
Yeah! It's not TRUE OSR!

>>50724796
It might be "OSR" but it's also "Shit OSR" so I don't place it in my "Pristine OSR" folder, thank you very much.

>>50724672
>>50724696
>>50724796
>>50724818
Sine Nomine is one of the bigger OSR publishers.

Quit moving goalposts.

>>50724907
A publisher can be big and low-quality. See: Wizards of the Coast and Paizo.

>>50724918
Doesn't this mean we can dismiss all arguments against OSR games with a smug, "Well, that doesn't apply to REAL OSR games"?

>>50724943
I'd suggest instead of complaining about a nebulous and disparate collection of games that share only the trait "inspired by pre-3e D&D", you complain about either traits of specific games or mechanical trends throughout all systems that you believe to be most prevalent in OSR.

>>50724907
I'm not moving goalposts. I have clearly stated that I concede that Godbound is a bad OSR game, because of its thick rules and vagueness. Now what you have to do is show me why OSR overall is shit.

>A rules-heavy game's mountains of weirdly specific, nitty gritty rules and disjointed subsystems.

The fuck are you talking about?

>>50725377
He thinks that Godbound is the standard for OSR games.

>>50725396
Sine Nomine in general.

Sine Nomine is pretty big in OSR sales.

>>50725417
>Sine Nomine is pretty big in OSR sales.
How compatible is it with other OSR games?
Can I run B2 Keep on the Borderlands with Godbound without much problem?

>>50725458
Sine Nomine is Godbound, Stars Without Number, and a bunch of other games.

It's all OSR compatible.

Kevin Crawford has a god-tier work ethic, but he's kinda dickish whenever someone comes in wanting balanced rulings.

>>50725396
I thought the standard was D&D B/X and that any further retroclone acted more as a plugin/re-format of the system rather than adding senseless rules

>>50725473
This is correct. I meant that OP doesn't know what he's talking about since his complaints are about Godbound/Sine Nomine rather than OSR.

>>50725471
If I'm to believe what some other have written here, Godbound a very thick work that also has a lot of vague rules. This doesn't exactly scream OSR to me. What's your stance?

>>50725508
>Godbound a very thick work that also has a lot of vague rules
There are a fair number of vague rules, which is probably Kevin's most consistent flaw. It's not really that thick (unless I'm somehow amazing at dealing with rulesets). Most of the space is either abilities for the PCs (which take up a fair bit of space) and tools for the GM. The core's slightly heavier than most OSR games, but it's not really heavy in comparison to most games. If you do think it's too far, it's pretty easy to steal the parts you like and staple them onto another system.

>>50723514
>rose-tinted nostalgia

>>50723522
>100% nostalgia

>>50723825
>mix of nostalgia

>>50723838
>other than nostalgia

>>50724028
>Nostalgia

Maybe for some, yeah, but a significant number in the OSR never had any experience with pre-3E D&D before. It's not nostalgia for us, since this is our first experience with it.

Also Philotomy makes some good points:

>ROSE COLORED GLASSES

>For some reason, when I tell other gamers I'm playing OD&D (or AD&D, or B/X, et cetera), I often hear comments about my "nostalgia" or my "rose colored glasses." I find this both odd and annoying. The idea behind "rose colored glasses" is that your perception is being altered, and that you aren't seeing things as they truly are. If you're "looking back through rose colored glasses," it means that you're not seeing clearly, with the implication that time has tricked your memory, making the past seem better than it actually was. You only see the good stuff through the rose colored glasses. So this is a neat turn of phrase, a flippant dismissal of any fond feelings for older editions like OD&D. Nevertheless, while glib, the phrase doesn't apply to me and my enthusiam for OD&D.

>Rose colored glasses only "work" when you're looking back on an experience. Once you actually go back and experience it, again, the glasses stop working. At that point, the experience must stand or fall on its own merits (or lack thereof). I'm not looking back fondly on OD&D, I'm currently playing it. When I say I like it, it's not because rose colored glasses have skewed my perception of the past; it's because I like the experience I'm currently having. Rose colored glasses? Nope.

>>50726074
You will find that >>50724028 has actually further detailed about why people who haven't played OD&D like it.

>>50726074

That rebuttal ignores the fact that past experiences or expectations can and do have a real impact on current experiences. No human being evaluates something purely on its own merits, it's always couched in our biases and predispositions.

>>50723514

I know this is a troll thread, and there's so much stupid shit in here, but 10/10, you got me to reply anyway.

I ran a Godbound game for three players. Two of them were experienced D&D fans, and picked it up immediately. The third was a girl who came to sessions for her boyfriend, not out of any interest, and only chargenned because he urged her. I sat down with them, with the Godbound PDFs on my big screen, and they chargenned. It took them about half an hour, because they all had to keep reading the options on a single screen and writing stuff down.

By the time it was done, the girlfriend fully understood everything, jumped into the game eagerly, and was being more creative and active with the rulespace she was given than either of the other two guys, who had built relatively cool concepts but hadn't really latched onto the freedom and flexibility.

It's a balance, OP. It's not "the worst of rulesheavy" and "the worst of ruleslite." It's "rules to provide a guideline, the GM to guide." It gives new players less to deal with while still providing them with everything they need to get on the table and going inside a half-hour (a truly ponderous task for anyone playing Pathfinder), and then enough rules to keep them on task and limit them from being overwhelmed by options bloat (a common problem with ruleslite).

There's also the fact that all of the games are interchangeable and hackable with very little effort. I rarely run games straight from the book with OSR, because I frequently find systems that are smoother or cleaner or more fiddly depending on what my group wants in that area of the game, cut them out, and frankenstein them onto the B/X core.

"A solid system that provides everything you want, is easy to homebrew for, and is not over-ponderous nor over-fluffy" is not "RPG luddism," and it's kind of insulting that a potentially honest question was drowned in pretentious assholery and assuming the worst of people who like the DIY spirit.

>>50723631
>Why is it only OSR that shuts away the "build" people and the "narrative" people?
Well, "only" aside, the increased randomness and lethality discourage those attitudes of play.

Having a wide range of possibilities with rolled stats is bad for builders because it means they can't reliably manipulate what stats they'll have at character creation: "builds" in effect become nothing more than making the best of limited choices, as opposed to building to a framework from the start. Increased lethality as enforced by RAW throws a wrench into plans of "narrative" types because it means that their own character's Hero's Journey might get killed on the doorstep at the hands of some dickish kobolds.

Disclaimer: I've only ever played AD&D when I was in high school, and it's been a long time since then.

OSR uses a easily understood framework that can be easily manipulated to suit a game. You can essentially mechanize your game's tone and narrative, without having to introduce weird fiddly plot point mechanics. It's also the heart of DIY D&D, which is really the place where the most original D&D content comes from. It's actually a beautiful thing, when your encounter and loot tables tell a story, and the path ahead is unpredictable even for you as a DM because players are fickle and there are many options on the tables. Very little is fluff, it's all gameable ideas, with a mechanical representation. That's what I think the appeal of OSR is.

i find them simple and to the point, also character growth seems more deep

File: 98f2fa0ce2d67baece3eedd4eb7ad072.gif (266KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 500x281px

>OSR babbies

Honestly, I've found that all the shittiest hipster games come from this "OSR" camp. I imagine that it's because OSR gamers are retardedly easy to market to, being functionally iliterate when it comes to game design, so pretty much any hack can shit out an "old school" game as long as they dress it up with enough crappy ad&d nomanclature.

And I absolutely mean it when I say these people are functionally iliterate. OSR babbies literally pride themselves on their games being such vague, hard to rule pieces of shit that essentially no two GMs are going to make the same call.

>>50729991

Honestly, everything about OSR seems to be people wanting systems they can ignore, which doesn't make any sense to me. Why have rules or mechanics at all if you're going to handwave and half remember most of them anyway, running the game as it exists in your mind rather than as it exists in any book?

Then again, 5e is kinda based on the same principles and that's selling like hotcakes, so who the fuck knows?

Rulings, not rules. Highly modular rules with lots of space for tweaking and houseruling.

Old school gaming needs a completely different kind of philosophy compared to what modern games assume. The games are not about character building or even the characters themselves, but rather the campaign the referee has created. Player skill plays a huge role. Elaborate skill systems are a big no-no.

They're not "just another game". They're a different kind of game altogether.

>>50729991
>And I absolutely mean it when I say these people are functionally iliterate. OSR babbies literally pride themselves on their games being such vague, hard to rule pieces of shit that essentially no two GMs are going to make the same call.
I've found this same thing, and it just boggles me. Yes, my DM can change the rules. Having a fucking baseline to work from that doesn't make her put in more fucking work would be nice.

>>50730099

What player skill is there without enough depth of mechanics to make the rules themselves a challenge?

'Player skill' in the OSR context just seems to mean the ability to predict and outthink the GM?

>>50730099
>Player skill plays a huge role.

This stuck out to me because it is such a massively retarded statement when you yourself admit in your post how loosey goosey OSR """""mechanics""""" are.

You can't *have* "player skill" when the rules of the game are so fucking muddled that they exist purely in the referee's mind, because players have zero basis on which to judge the rules of reality. It's like saying player skill plays a huge role in fucking Calvin Ball.

>>50730123
Player skill as in do smart things with your character(s). There are mechanics and some of them are pretty detailed. For example the dungeon exploration rules are pretty robust. What old school games most often don't have is skill systems. When you can't resolve most situations with a simple skill check, you as the player need to be smart and think how to solve problems.

Play smart and you survive. Do stupid stuff and you die. Also the game is not supposed to be "balanced" around the party. There's nothing to guarantee you only encounter level-appropriate monsters or whatever like in modern games. You as the player have to make the decision to fall back if things get hairy.

>>50730191

So it's more about metagaming than roleplaying?

>>50730182
>You can't *have* "player skill" when the rules of the game are so fucking muddled that they exist purely in the referee's mind
Nah. It's nothing like this. Like I said, for example the so called dungeon exploration cycle is pretty much codified and players know how things work. They can make educated decisions. There's nothing muddled about how old school games work.

Can you give me a specific example of a rule that is muddled in old school D&D?

>>50730123
The GM sets up a situation and the players find a way to get through the situation. It shouldn't be them predicting and out-thinking the GM, but they should try to predict and out-think the challenges and dangers. Basically, the players are supposed to *play* and *do well* in the *game*.
Have you ever played an OSR game?

File: disgustipation.jpg (24KB, 297x400px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 297x400px

This whole thread is just awful. It stinks of bait right from the OP.

>>50729991
>>50730064

What OSR communities have you been reading?

OSR is all about mechanization and rules rigidity. They take gameable ideas and mechanize them. Loots tables, encounter tables, dungeon maps, hex maps, meaningful statistical representation, the distillation of creating enemies and monsters into easy to understand and build parts. The creation of races, or jobs, or whatever character options that suit the genre and game you're playing without having to break things to do it. Ultimately, nearly all content made in the OSR is compatible with other OSR content, with interchangeable pieces that doesn't break things either. Switch the ship combat of MotSP with the scalable combat of SWN and nothing breaks, but now ship combat is just like regular combat, but bigger.

They also understand that not EVERYTHING needs rules They're the tools in which to run your game, and like tools you use the right ones for the job.

What you're describing sounds like the indie rpg scene, which has roots in the OSR are DIY D&D community, but they're not OSR.

>>50730206
To some extent, yes. Player skill assumes some experience and knowledge of how these types of games work.

But most of all it's smart roleplaying. Like doing investigation to know what's ahead, actually doing some scouting, using the environment, using diplomacy, utilising items in clever ways etc.

And one of the biggest traits of old school D&D is that experience is gained from treasure, not by killing monsters.

>>50730206
It's more that OSR isn't afraid to admit that there is always some kind of metagaming going on at the table. The players become aware of systems and mechanics and need to understand them to survive, why hide that? That doesn't mean that there's always metagaming going on during OSR play. Well, maybe if you're a boring person and play with boring people, but in that case you might as well play a board game.

This thread is confusing me. People on both 'sides', pro and against OSR, are presenting wildly different accounts of what it is and what its strengths and weaknesses are. Is it even a single consistent thing, or is it just a broad, vague category with a huge amount of different stuff beneath it?

>>50730339
This, it's a game first and foremost. You're usually around a table playing a game. You are aware of this fact. The game is the medium in which story emerges.

>>50730364
OSR can almost always be simplified into old school D&D and its direct derivatives.

Like someone already pointed out, modern indie games by and large have nothing to do with OSR.

>>50730364

OSR is a broad community built around the revival of early D&D and its associated playstyles, which had been replaced by very different ones in new D&D and its competitors.
People come to OSR from different angles and with different ideas, so it's a pretty diverse field, and opinions vary about what bits are the important ones.
Also a number of the people in this thread are full of shit and probably trying to troll.

This guy has a good take on it, though. Also see the followups on "Player Agendas" and "Referee Agendas" for OSR gaming.

http://roll1d100.blogspot.com/2016/08/what-is-osr.html

>>50730364
You're right, actually. Go to /osrg/ and ask them to define OSR and you will find many different ideas. Don't know what the anti-osr people got their ideas from though.

I think the usually described components of OSR are:
>Based on OD&D, Basic D&D and rarely but sometimes AD&D
>Focus on quick and random character generation and high lethality
>Fast paced play. Focus on the game going smoothly and having fun and interesting things happen
>Laissez-faire view on rules, as in that rules can be rulings if it keeps the flow of the game intact. Taking time to look things up is discouraged since it is boring
>More "weird fantasy" rather than "high fantasy" or "low fantasy"
>DIY-attitude. DMs should do a lot by themselves, like changing rules that they don't like or change things in modules to suit them and their group
>Intercompatibility, most OSR should work for most OSR games, whether or not they're made for them. The DM shouldn't have to fiddle too much to make it work.

Keep in mind that if I post this in /osrg/ then I will probably be contested at all points.

>>50730499
>most OSR *modules* should work for most OSR games
Accidentally a word there.

File: Thief Cocoa.jpg (37KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x500px

With Basic and its derivatives you have a very specific playstyle focused on resource management and creative problem solving, and simple enough rules that it plays without too much trouble. One thing I like is that you can run it like a board game so newbies can get into the whole thing much easier. Newer versions of D&D don't really do that and put emphasis on other things, and give players much more agency and tools which creates different kinds of campaigns.

And there are modern takes on that playstyle, see retroclones, so it isn't wholly a thing where we wish we lived in the 70's and such. You have some really cool content like a lot of the LotFP adventures which unlike many premade adventures for games are very open ended and really do tension well.

It's just my five cents. If I wanted to play anything outside that super specific style I would of course choose some other RPG.

>>50730064
Are there seriously people on this board that are such hardcore ruleslawyers that they care about having every rule followed? Jesus fuck

>>50730625

Severe false dichotomy.

I don't want a system I can ignore. I want a system which provides a useful and intuitive framework for actions that makes my job as a GM easier.

>>50730642
This is literally what OSR games are.

>>50730642
Isn't this exactly what OSR is?

>>50730565
systems works here too

>>50730499
>More "weird fantasy" rather than "high fantasy" or "low fantasy"

That's more a LotFP thing.

>>50730678
>>50730684

It's what every well designed RPG is ever made, so if that's part of your definition then it isn't a useful one.

>>50730642
>I don't want a system I can ignore.

For everyone in this thread posting this, what the fuck does this mean? You can ignore any system, what makes OSR special in this?

>>50730694
>That's more a LotFP thing.
True, but there are a lot of unusual modules and settings in OSR. I love Yoon-Suin for exemple

>>50730725

The continued comments about rulings over rules, not looking things up and instead winging it whenever necessary.

>>50730741
That's just table conventions though, it's not baked into the game per se. You can look up rules all you want with OSR, it's just not expected within the OSR community.

>>50730772

That's what's confusing about it. It seems like something you could do with any system and yet it's been specifically trumpeted as a strength or trait of OSR games.

>>50730741
That doesn't mean that rules are not being used though. The point of old school gaming is to not have a rule for every possible action because much of it is easier and faster to just adjudicate with a quick ruling while playing.

Rules shouldn't be ignored because they're there for a reason. The games are fairly robust in design and probably the most playtested systems out there.

>>50730786
I think it's more that the general experience players of for example Pathfinder are very much against doing anything but RAW. I guess it is also justifiable since the game is based on building a perfect character based on the written rules. If the DM changes a tiny thing on the fly, it might break a whole encounter or character.

With OSR it's usually way more chill, and that's why it's a strength.

File: Primer.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

From Matt Finch's OSR Primer
>Most of the time in old-style gaming, you don’t use a rule; you make a ruling. It’s easy
to understand that sentence, but it takes a flash of insight to really “get it.” The players
can describe any action, without needing to look at a character sheet to see if they “can”
do it. The referee, in turn, uses common sense to decide what happens or rolls a die if he
thinks there’s some random element involved, and then the game moves on. This is why
characters have so few numbers on the character sheet, and why they have so few
specified abilities. Many of the things that are “die roll” challenges in modern gaming
(disarming a trap, for example) are handled by observation, thinking, and
experimentation in old-style games. Getting through obstacles is more “hands-on” than
you’re probably used to. Rules are a resource for the referee, not for the players.
Players use observation and description as their tools and resources: rules are for the
referee only.

>>50726074
You don't have to have lived through an age to be nostalgic for it. Look at the very fact that our fantasy tends to be set in faux medieval Europe as your proof. We hear stories of the glory days, and wish we could have lived in that time, which seems so much grander and more beautiful than the dark days we've found ourselves in.

>>50723892
I have. First campaign, played it as a kid with my friend's dad DMing (who had played it while he was younger), playing out of one of those premade dungeons.

>>50730828

I don't know of any game which has a rule for every possible action. More often they'll have broadly applicable rules that can be adapted to a lot of different actions.

OSR, on the other hand, seems to have relatively little internal consistency, lots of different actions working in different ways?

>>50730903
And if you actually went back in time and lived there then you would realize it was terrible.
But you can't. You CAN however go back and play OSR and many people still enjoy it.

>>50730944

see >>50726131

>>50730987
And I'm saying that I never played those earlier editions when they came out. My first exposure to D&D was 4e and then a few years later 5e when it came out.
You can't just completely ignore every argument that's Pro-OSR because "Muh Nostalgia".

>>50730923
Did you really though?

If one of your characters cast a psi-like spell (like charm person or detect magic), did your DM roll a die to see if they encountered a psionic being (1-in-6 chance!), with the possibility of fucking Demogorgon showing up?

If your character did not wear a helmet, did the DM roll to see if the enemy hits your head (1-in-6 chance!) which only has AC 10 despite you wearing armor otherwise?

These are just two examples of the clusterfuck that is AD&D rules.

>>50731060
Most of those are optional and variant rules.

The way the rules are organized certainly is a mess but it's really not so bad as you make it out to be

>>50723514
There are three main appeals: simplicity, modularity and DM power. While neither side would admit it, these are also the appealing points for Powered by the Apocalypse games. This is why Dungeon World was the first and most successful PbtA hack; Adam and Sage picked up on those shared appeals with the quickness.

OSR games are simple, even though they are kludges of old systems, since character generation is fast (preventing option paralysis), life is cheap (thus pushing away the horseshoe fringe basketweavers and munchkins) and the bones of each system is "Roll a d20. Hit a range of target numbers. Repeat." That makes the systems easily playable, since regardless of your brand of skub; the d20 basic system is mad elegant.

Because of this, OSR games are very modular, since a lot of them are based on B/X and share 80s D&D DNA even if they aren't. This means that the systems and subsystems in each version can be transferred to another OSR system relatively easily, since these systems are self contained and free floating a fair bit of the time. This also means that when you buy one OSR game, you have a lot of material to work with, since you can steal left right and center from both OSR peers and D&D during its first reign as the end all be all of TTRPGs. The thing about Sine Nomine games specifically is the B/X rules part is filler. What actually sells games are the modules: robust adventure generators in general, solo play in Scarlet Heroes, space seeding in SWN, and the Charm system in Godbound (with a healthy dose of eating Exalted's lunch). An interesting corollary to this is since there is so much material, but the mechanics are so simple, it is easy to remove material as much as it is to add. Which leads to the third appeal.

In these kinds of games, the DM is God. They not only know the rules to the game, but they know what got kit bashed to it in ways the players don't.

>>50731455
>Cont'D

The kit bash nature works the same way all those splats do in stuff like Pathfinder: new material to play with, but beholden only to the DM. This lets the DM be the munchkin for once. If the players still find a way to get around the DM's cool shit, the narrative nature encourages things getting shut down at the DM's will. It's their story, not the players'; which is why stuff like Hero Points rarely find their way into OSR games. It allows the DM to keep and maintain control of the game in ways a super crunchy or a super narrative game can't, unless the DM knows the system like the back of their hand.

The tl;dr is this: people like OSR because it's easy to play to the level most people play, it has a lot of cross-compatible stuff to play with, and it allows the DM to be the powergamer without crossing That Guy lines.

>>50731448
But that's why I wrote that nobody ever played AD&D RAW. Of course people actually played AD&D, but not with all the written rules. And I don't even think they were optional either since Gygax wanted to have specific tournament rules that everyone used.

>>50729991
>pretending to be autistic as bait
>but is genuinely autistic unbeknownst to himself
Your shitposting is like watching an ugly puppy vomit.

>>50723514
I don't know about other people, but for me it's because the games (seem like they were) designed for a specific type of game and I happen to like that type of game. Newer editions drifted more into generic fantasy heroics, which is fine, but every now and then I like to get my grim n gritty dungeoncrawl on.

That said, I'd prefer a newer game along those lines, with a bit more in the way of character options built in by default but also less to keep track of (or purposefully ignore).

>>50730239
The dungeon exploration cycle is codified well.

The rules for them are not.

>>50730499
>More "weird fantasy" rather than "high fantasy" or "low fantasy"
Horseshit.

>>50731455
>Roll a d20. Hit a range of target numbers. Repeat.

Except it's also a d6 or a d% at completely random times, and you don't know whether you want to roll high or low.

>>50731621

RAW is overrated anyway. Google "healing by drowning".

>>50732395
Yes, that was the point I was making.

>>50732267
>Except it's also a d6 or a d% at completely random times
If something that minor really bothers you, Adventurer Conqueror Kings is a well-praised OSR system that changes thief skills and racial skills to a d20 roll. Alternatively you could houserule it.
>and you don't know whether you want to roll high or low.
As a player you don't need really need to know the rules at all in OSR. You just tell the DM what your character does and he tells you what to roll if you even need roll at all.

>>50732540

>As a player you don't need really need to know the rules at all in OSR. You just tell the DM what your character does and he tells you what to roll if you even need roll at all.

This just sounds so fucking weird to me. It completely robs you of the ability to make informed decisions. Sure you can think about the fluff and all that, but unless you're a mind reader it gives you no real clue as to your actual chance of success.

>>50732569
You can always ask the DM what the chance of success is, and even if you need to roll anything if you're planning to do something.

>>50732607

But that's just an unnecessary waste of the GMs time when if I knew and understood the system I'd already be equipped to make that sort of estimate myself.

>>50732468

One thing you have to understand about "tournament rules" is that they were intended for just that, tournaments, which were a variation of how the game was played; competitively, and with specific challenges in mind.

In the 1e DMG, Gygax encourages DMs to leave out parts of the rules they don't find suitable. However, most OSR folks feel its easier to built on the foundation of B/X, and add the AD&D rules they like to it, rather than stripping what they don't like from AD&D.

But, even then, there're people who like AD&D just the way it is. I don't personally, but they're welcome to play what they want.

>>50732629
It really isn't. And how would you be sure that you fully understood the system? Let's say you want your character to jump a chasm, how would you handle that with your DM in your game of choice?

>>50732689

Context is everything, and that's kinda my point. From how a GM describes it you might get a vague idea of whether or not its jumpable, but if a system has solid rules for leaping then I can look at the numbers on my sheet and make a decent guess as to what will happen if I try, because I understand the relevant mechanics. I can do that bit of mental processing rather than forcing all the work on the GM.

>>50732742
Why would would you only get vague idea when you ask the GM yourself? There are like only a couple things he can tell you:
>Yes, you can manage the jump in your current condition
>Kind of, you can manage the jump in your current condition if you roll [this or that]
>No, you won't manage the jump in your current condition
Also could you explain what kind of mental processing that you would do to handle it yourself? Use the game you're most comfortable with. I'm genuinely curious.

>>50732742
>From how a GM describes it you might get a vague idea of whether or not its jumpable
You just have to ask "how long does the chasm look" and the DM will give you an estimate.
In OSR players need to be constantly asking questions. This may sound like boring or a waste of time but in actual play this kind of interrogative exploring can be very enjoyable and rewarding.
You're supposed to spend more time engaging with the environment instead of staring at a character sheet.

File: Super Mario 64 16.jpg (56KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 640x360px

>>50732395
Is this Mario 64?

>>50723514
>and the onus it places on the GM to "figure out how this works yourself and make rulings"
The fact that this is somehow implied to be a bad thing is what upsets me the most about OP's statement.

>>50723891
No it's not you fucking moron. D Vincent Baker is a cool guy and way less pretentious than Merals, Monte Cocksucker, and that Mouse Guard fuckwit. Oh and John Wick. All four of them can die in a gas chamebr for all I care, along with SKR from the Pathfinder dev team. I hope they all die of cancer or get run over by a bus. Fucking pieces of shit.

Vincent created a good system, it just got shit on by a bunch of uncreative losers who couldn't make their own games so they took his mechanic, raped it to death, and stretched its flaccid corpse over the end of their own rotten cocks like a condom. The result was Monster Hearts, Creature of the Week, Urban Shadows, Dungeon World, etc. etc. along with all of the other terrible AW hacks.

Apocalypse World itself is a good game, however.

File: monte cuck.jpg (23KB, 220x331px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 220x331px

>>50732885
>monte cocksucker

What was that guy's name again?

File: 1480470840801.png (8KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 300x300px

>>50732885
Go back to bed, lumpley.

File: van-art4.jpg (210KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1024x768px

Because 3.PF is shit.

B/X, BFRPG, LotFP etc. can accomplish everything modern games aim for without the bloated mess involved. It's more fun to run as a DM and encourages players to be creative rather than reliant on class-builds and excessive skill lists. It's so simple that homebrewing any stupid class you want can be done with little effort.

Tho I don't mind 5e at all.

>>50732885
>Vincent Baker is a cool guy
No
>John Wick can die in a gas chamber
Yes

>>50732837
I'd actually agree with this. Osr games generally encourage the gm to be more accurate with descriptions and the players to ask questions. My b/x gm will tell us what we need to roll generally. If the number is high, we usually try to manipulate the environment to increase our chances before rolling.

>>50732837

Interrogative exploration sounds weird to me. I always trust that a GM will tell me anything relevant there is, possibly asking for a roll if it needs finding.

The closest I get to it is sometimes asking if a particular thing is present in a scene, but that's generally more of a suggestion that the GM could add it rather than checking if it was there already.

>>50732830

Very basic things, but it's an example of the sort of thing a player can do to take the burden off a GM. Working out your average athletics check to remember how many squares/feet you can jump, little things like that.

>>50732658
I don't really know what we're talking about. I wrote that nobody has played AD&D RAW, and by that I meant that nobody has played AD&D with all (ALL) of its rules. I'm sure you don't disagree with me. The only point I was making is that AD&D had a lot of stupid rules that nobody used.

>>50733054
>all games have to be either OSR or D&D

Nice false dichotomy.

>>50733146
>Very basic things, but it's an example of the sort of thing a player can do to take the burden off a GM. Working out your average athletics check to remember how many squares/feet you can jump, little things like that.
This is still possible with OSR. You can say "I had to roll [this or that] when I climbed that tree last session, so I guess I have to roll the same for this one, right?" and that is fine.
However, having rules for jumping based on squares/feet is generally too much for OSR. A chasm would rather be described as "long and hard to jump" rather than "6 feet long". The former description is more evocative, it gets the mind going with imagining it. It isn't rigid and mathematical in the way the latter is. This is the feel that OSR usually goes for.

>>50733146
>Interrogative exploration sounds weird to me. I always trust that a GM will tell me anything relevant there is, possibly asking for a roll if it needs finding.
In OSR a DM usually just tells you what you would see at first glance when entering a room and to get more info the player needs to ask for it.
Like "you open the door and the is a desk along the far wall with some candles on it." .
Then instead of saying "I search the room" and then rolling a search check, you might say something like "I check under the desk." or "I look at the candles. Are they made of gold or something?". Then the DM would tell you exactly what you find out.

>>50733246

There are also systems in more abstract terms. Legends of the Wulin has a simple scale of sample difficulties, but putting together the numbers on your sheet generally gives you a solid idea of what you can achieve.

>>50733265

I guess I just don't see the point. Why shouldn't the GM give the players all the information present that would be obvious, with rolls to get anything that wasn't? I don't really see how having to ask specific questions really helps things in any way.

>>50723514
The clearly-defined feedback loop of adventuring which isn't just kill everything, and the focus on exploration.

Also, it can't be nostalgia if you are currently playing it.

>>50733267
That sounds nice, but this isn't how OSR games do it. I'd wager that it probably takes longer for a player to look up and calculate chance of jumping, even if it's on the sheet, than it takes the DM to say how much he has to roll to jump the chasm.

>>50733274
The point is that classic D&D is about problem solving and imagining situations. It's a test of your minds abilities. It's a game about exploration, and the way to explore is to ask questions.

>>50733274
He does give out the most obvious information. But instead of rolling to get more info you verbally explore the space. This rewards creative thinking far more then a die roll could.

>>50733274
>rolls to get anything that wasn't?
Hiding key information behind a dice roll is unsatisfying as a player. Perception rolls/spot checks are absolute cancer in my opinion

>>50733344

I just don't see the point of wasting time asking questions. There's not even a real skill element to it, if you ask enough questions you'll get the right answer anyway, so why not just skip the bullshit?

>>50733380
>wasting time asking questions.
This is the game. Why do you waste time rolling dice? Why do you waste time playing a game?

>There's not even a real skill element to it, if you ask enough questions you'll get the right answer anyway, so why not just skip the bullshit?
Because if enough time is wasted, things like random encounters can happen. Also, things found can be dangerous and might kill the PCs, like traps or deadly potions.

>>50733380
>There's not even a real skill element to it
There's even less skill in rolling a perception check.

>>50733428

I never claimed there was. I still find the whole 'player skill' idea a bit confusing and dubious in the absence of mechanical crunch to engage with.

>>50733435
In an OSR game, quite a lot of things are going on behind the screen that the DM takes care of. The players will not know all of it but will come to know some of it, and will be told some of it. Things like an encounter roll happening whenever some time has passed, the time left until a torch runs out, and how long is left until that guy that got away rings the alarm bells. Player skill is to understand this and planning and acting accordingly. Don't spend too long in a room, bring extra torches, cut the rope to the alarm bell/hunt down the one who got away.

>>50733435
Because perception information falls into three categories:

1) Things a DM wants players to know
2) Things a DM wants players to not know
3) Things a DM wants players to know conditionally.

It's the third category that one might want to have a skill check. In general, one wants to roll when there are some sort of stakes to a situation. For simple exploration with non-obvious stakes, dicing violates that principle. Furthermore, it seems more fair to hide information behind player inquisition, rather than random chance. And if the situation is such that you as a DM has information which you don't care either way, you should give it to the players in the vein of "saying yes is fun."

>>50733435
In OSR player skill doesn't come from knowing the optimal build or choosing the correct feats. It comes from actual experience playing the game and understanding the world you are adventuring in.
You have to know where to look to find traps and you have to actually think about how you could actually disarm them if you find them. Eventually you learn you can poke the floor ahead of you with a 10 foot pole to find pit traps or that opening a chest from behind with protect you from any darts flying out.

>>50733561
>>50733642

That sounds more like being generally genre savvy than any particular application of skill. Being aware of the tropes that govern the game and acting appropriately.

>>50733687
Yes, and that's why the DM constantly has to find ways to challenge the players creatively and intellectually. It's not like all problems will be stereotypical, and there's no such thing as a foolproof solution. We've only brought up simple problems and solutions so far to give a general idea.

>>50733687
I was giving tropes as examples because I thought it would be easier to understand, but it usually works just as well or even better in completely strange and unique settings.

>>50733642
Why is "metagaming like a motherfucker" supposed to be a feature of the system?

>>50734258
If players can negatively effect the game through metagaming then the DM has failed somewhere.
Learning you need fire or acid to kill a troll is fun and interesting. Pretending not to know that next campaign is not.
This is why the DM needs to constantly come up with new and interesting challenges where preconceived answers won't always work.

>>50734258
Because that is the way the game is played?

>>50734258
Is making a good tactical choice in a battle metagaming?
If my character has points in a military strategy skill, can I roll to make a good choice in a battle?

Part of roleplaying your character is making decisions for them. Some games allow for more decision-making than others.

>>50734345
>>50734358
>>50734909
And why is this endemic only to OSR?

>>50734258
How is it 'metagaming' to use your understanding of physical possibility to figure out what your character should do?

But like >>50736194 says, this doesn't seem to be something that only happens in OSR.

So, is there some specific OSR thing you're all talking about?

>>50736223
It's the community's culture.

One specific thing I like about the core OSR systems (B/X and its close clones) is that the game isn't afraid to admit what it is about: it's a game about getting through the dungeon, finding valuable shit, and running for your life.

I like that the reward cycle isn't find monster, kill monster, gain levels, but that it's find treasure, don't die to monster, gain levels.

I like how the core osr places emphasis on actually playable encumbrance, light and time managing rolls.

I like how there isn't some stupid assumption about game balance, because encounters aren't the main source of xp.

I like that even I as a DM can't predict when a random encounter might happen, and even to some extent what will be encountered.

Sure you can do all this stuff in later editions (talking d&d here), but it is so cleanly codified in OSR games and brought to a modern game design standard (see BFRPG or LotFP), and that is a game I enjoy.

If I want to play some weird horror game, I'll play call of cthulhu. If I want to play some shadow run, I'll play some shadow run.

But if I want to play a game centred around recourse management and classic dungeon crawling, I'll play an OSR game.

>>50733642
What if I play a realistic game where people don't leave horrible traps in chests they might want to open?

>>50738335
Just because something MIGHT be not trapped doesn't mean that you shouldn't be careful.
Also, >implying there is no way to open chest properly that only the owner knows.

>>50738335
When you trap a chest, you usually leave a way to open it without triggering it: pushing a button, turning the key clockwise, speaking a few magic words…
Disarming a trap is usually finding what that trick is.

File: 1457204583004.gif (3MB, 200x155px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 200x155px

>>50738335
>>50738412
It seems like a more sensible thing to do would be to use all of that mechanical know-how and magical enchantment to make a secure, magic-resistant lock.

Maybe that's just me.

>>50733380
>if you ask enough questions you'll get the right answer anyway

Questions are backed with actions. Your character has to investigate the environment. It might cost him time, provoking wandering monster checks, it might cost him items, it might cost him life. Because of the time spent on exploration explicitly tied to the light sources you can't explore every possibility, ask every question there is. The bigger the room, the more time you waste. At some point you have to make the decision using the information you gathered.

Also, not every threat has to be lethal. There's a perfectly good range of consequences, it's just that death is always a possibility, making you pay much more attention to the game.

>>50738335
>realistic game

Right. I guess any D&D version, oldschool or modern, isn't for you.

>>50738509
Why not both? This is a sword & sorcery world we're talking about after all.

>>50738557
Opportunity costs.

>>50738591
That's like asking why Hawkeye doesn't use a gun instead of bow and arrows. Trapped chests are a genre trope, and require buy-in from the players (even though they don't make that much sense from a "realistic" point of view).

>>50738545
>Right. I guess any D&D version, oldschool or modern, isn't for you.

So I can't play a game where monmsters are randomly distrubuted across the dungeon but actually are organized, have a chain of command of sorts and cooperate in an intelligent manner?

>>50738864
Not that Anon, but if they're organized, have a chain of command of sorts and cooperate in an intelligent manner, they cannot be randomly distributed across the dungeon.

And what does that have to do with either realism or trapped chests?

>>50738864
>but actually are organized, have a chain of command of sorts and cooperate in an intelligent manner?
In D&D, this may lead to you getting butchered. Since a realistic 'dungeon' could easily set up some Pyramids-level death traps for you.

But it's up to the GM. A good GM can pull it off, since he or she is going to be doing all the strategizing for them. But as said, there can be points where you're asking the GM for hard mode, and if the GM knows tactics that you the players don't, well... you better have more character sheets.

>>50723514
Who dis qt?

Is there smut?

>>50738864
>deathtraps in the chests aren't realistic
>D&D generally isn't
>so I can't have organized monsters in this game?

That's the most retarded goalpost moving here so far, anon.

>>50738896
I have no idea.

And there's always a smut. ALWAYS.

>>50736194
>And why is this endemic only to OSR?
It can happen in other games too, but in my experience it works best in OSR systems because they were made to work that way.
Like in 5e why would a player ever explain thoroughly where their character is looking when they can just roll perception. Or why would they ever act carefully when in 5e RAW PCs past level 3 almost never die?

>>50739377

...Because roleplaying?

>>50739419
But I would rather play a system that enforces it rather then ignores or penalizes it.

>>50739377
>Or why would they ever act carefully when in 5e RAW PCs past level 3 almost never die?
Bounded accuracy.

File: 1436659619811.jpg (418KB, 860x1000px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 860x1000px

>>50739377
Why is "there are no perception rules" supposed to be a feature? Shit.

I mean, there actually ARE perception rules, that's what the thief does!

>>50739491
>Why is "there are no perception rules" supposed to be a feature?
Because the more skills that are on a character sheet, the less the system emphasizes player creativity.
>I mean, there actually ARE perception rules, that's what the thief does!
In some OSR systems yes a thief has a listen skill for listening to doors or down dark hallways but again using skills like that instead of thoroughly explaining has a cost. That skill takes time and the longer you spend listening the greater chance of wandering monsters or wasting torches etc.

It's fine if you hate OSR for whatever reason. 5e is a great game but I just doesn't do it for me the way OSR does.

>>50739553

>Because the more skills that are on a character sheet, the less the system emphasizes player creativity.

How the fucking fuck does that make any damn sense?

Giving someone more tools to work with somehow reduces their ability to think creatively? What?

>>50739585
Perception skills isn't a tool, it's a convenience.
Explain how you're more creative when you roll dice than when you're thinking and exploring with your own mind.

>>50739585
>Giving someone more tools to work with somehow reduces their ability to think creatively? What?
Because it benefits a player to stare at their sheet and see whatever they have the highest bonus in and just roll that instead of thinking about what their character would actually do.

>thinking most of /tg/ is old enough to have played basic and have nostalgia for it


Your points have a serious flaw.

>>50739613

Perceptions skills are a tool that can be used to quickly and reliably gain access to pertinent information that you can make use of in actual creative endeavours, like problem solving. Fucking around prior to that is just needless busywork.

>>50739620

Even if that were the case, there's still creativity in figuring out how you apply your highest skill to a situation, in considering the options you have available and figuring out how you can leverage them most effectively.

>>50739653
It's just that when the PCs are faced with a problem, instead of looking towards their sheets first for the answer, I would rather they looked towards themselves first.

>>50739628
I dunno, this discussion of OSR has piqued my curiosity at least, even if I never played basic. At the very least it seems new and different compared to my usual diet of 3.5/pathfinder.

>>50739694

I don't see the difference. The sheet is a representation of the character, a codified set of their capabilities to help the player understand how they're able to interact with the world. Looking at the sheet is looking at the character themselves, there's no real difference.

>>50739653
The OSR style is about exploration. What you call needless busywork is often a big and fun part of the game as it strongly has to do with understanding the game systems. OSR games are primarily based on avoiding dangerous combat encounters and finding treasure.
If a PC goes into a room and immediately finds out where the secret stash of jewels are, then there is no danger or tension since they managed to avoid monster encounters and get experience without doing any thinking whatsoever. This doesn't engage the players intellectually or creatively.

>>50739716
This is not the case in OSR games. The PC is more than what is on their character sheet. Using only what's on that is restricting the player and the player character.
Let's say you need your character to do something in game, but there's no number on the character sheet to show your chance of succeeding or whatever. If you strictly go by the idea that the sheet is the character, then you cannot do the thing.

>>50739716
When I said I would rather they looked towards themselves, I meant the players at the table. I would rather they thought "If I where really in this situation what would I do?", instead of hunting for the highest number on their character sheet so the can arbitrarily wave it in front of every problems face.
And I know it doesn't ALWAYS work that way, but modern systems a player usually benefits from playing like that.

>>50739745

I never said the sheet is the character- The sheet is a representation of the character. This can be restricting, and that is a good thing. Knowing what you are capable of and what you are not allows you to be more creative, not less, since you need to consider those restrictions and your particular aptitudes when approaching a problem.

The latter point just doesn't make sense to me, though. Even if there's not an exact value there's almost always something that can be applied, and that's where the creativity of making use of your capabilities comes in.

>>50739760

> I would rather they thought "If I where really in this situation what would I do?"

Wait, but... Aren't they playing a character? Not themselves in a fantasy world? Why would what they personally would do have an impact on the choices of their character in the game world?

>>50739781
I guess I should have stated "If I really were a wizard who grew up in the kingdom of Alibon and studied under the great mage Ortorisk and sailed across the sea in search of the artefact of bibbildybobbly in the mountain caverns of doom, what would I actually do in this situation?" but I thought that would be too long.

>>50739770
The character sheet isn't a restriction, it's a help to understand your character. It's true that your character often has limitations in some way, but in OSR games this is an opportunity for the player to do some thinking and doing things by themselves.

>>50739781
In OSR, the player and player character is often closer knit than in other games. You'll never be able to completely take on the role as a 12th century knight anyway, so why hide that you still have personal ideas?
You can always try to roleplay as a totally different character if you want of course, but OSR is fine with both.

>>50739810

Again, I don't really see how referencing the sheet is harmful in that case. It's a useful reminder to the player of the characters capabilities and frame of reference, letting you think more effectively from their perspective when making that manner of decision.

>>50739861
Of course the sheet is important, but the thing here is that it isn't everything that the player character is.
If you enter a room, see a bunch of things, and the only thing you can say is "I roll to see if there's anything interesting in the room with my search skill", then you're stuck in the mindset that the character is the sheet. You aren't actually interacting with the game world in any interesting way.

>>50732885

Sup, Virt. Looking forward to when you turn on AW.

>>50739861
And I don't see how that is necessary. If the player has no idea about what their character can and cannot do unless they look at a sheet, then that seems like a problem to me.
Of course Thungarr the barbarian can lift up a 150 pound rock and he can't understand the wizards spellbook, why do you need a sheet to tell you that?

>>50739907

That isn't what I'm saying, though? I'm just saying that having an idea of your capabilities and how they can be applied is helpful in terms of problem solving. And having those things clearly defined on your character sheet and keeping them in mind is a useful tool for player creativity, not a restriction of it.

>>50730191
>You as the player have to make the decision to fall back if things get hairy.
For the record, this is a really shitty concept because most of the enemies that will do this to a party are much faster than them.

>>50723854
Here here!

>>50739653
Fucking around prior to that is what the core of the experience consists of. It's the main draw of OSR gameplay.

>>50739861
It's not so much what a character is capable of per-say, as it is that using skills on the sheet is more of a shortcut.

It's the difference between:
"I search for traps"
"Okay roll perception"

and
"I search for traps"
"How?"
"I inspect the flagstones on the floor, to see if any are loose (or whatever)"

That's not to say that the first approach is BADWRONGFUN, it's just depends on what the game is focusing on.
Heroic fantasy works better with the former approach, while the latter is for when you want full fantasy Vietnam

>>50739933
It is a tool when it isn't restricting the free thinking of the player. If that's what you mean then I agree. What I'm saying is using the search skill because "it's on my sheet so that's the only way I can interact with the world" is a completely wrong mindset.

>>50739936
That's why you bring retainers who run slower than you.

>>50739921

Put it this way- The sheet has defined capabilities. Things they know they can do without having to ask or double check with the GM. If you can do something based on what is on your sheet then you know you can do it and can use that assumption as a basis for further action.

Without those defined capabilities, what you think your character is capable of and what the GM thinks your character is capable of might not line up, resulting in an unfortunate disconnect that can be harmful to the game.

>>50739978

And if I almost always do both? Throw in a bit of description or flavour before rolling a skill check? Because regardless of group or system that is pretty standard practice in every game I've been in.

>>50739985

>What I'm saying is using the search skill because "it's on my sheet so that's the only way I can interact with the world" is a completely wrong mindset.

I have never known anyone who has thought this way, or any game which has seemed to support this view.

>>50739936
That isn't just for combat. The players need to know whether they have enough equipment to keep carrying on or if they need to go a restock, or if they are half health do they keep going or do they turn back? And when they do turn back how many encounter checks could there be between there and the exit? They need to be constantly thinking about these things.

>>50739997
In that case you're almost playing OSR right, you just have to throw in the fact that rolling for search makes the PC look around the room for a "turn", or something like 10 minutes, which opens the possibility of a random encounter happening.

>>50740003
I've been in many groups (and seen many livestreamed games) where players, as soon a they see a problem, look down on their sheet and go "uhh, can I roll this or that to solve this problem?"

>>50739997
Well in the scenario I outlined, why bother rolling?
If you're checking for pressure plates hidden as flagstones, you're either gonna find them or you're not, depending on how well hidden they are.

>>50739936
That's quite an assumption you're making, and an unbased one at that. Besides, it's not given that the enemies pursue the characters in the first place.

>>50740023
>>50740026
Actually this guy has a good point.
Have a look at Torchbearer, which is basically the old-school experience with new-school design.
You can totally roll for stuff if you want to, but that expends a turn which means your torches are closer to burning down and you're closer to needing to eat and all that.
It encourages you to try and get away with as much as you can without touching the dice

>>50739997
Put it this way:
You roll the dice and say 'I pull on all the candlesticks looking for a secret passage'.

Turns out a passage IS triggered by pulling on the candlesticks, but you roll a 1 and fail the test.

How does that make sense? Why not just have the GM say 'you pull on the candlesticks and when you get to the third there is a creak and the door opens'. Isn't that more satisfying?

>>50739987
>Without those defined capabilities, what you think your character is capable of and what the GM thinks your character is capable of might not line up
Which is why you should discuss this kind of stuff at the start of a campaign so everyone understands what kind of game you intend to run. Whether it be gritty-realism, conan-style or whatever.

>>50740003
>or any game which has seemed to support this view
Literally 3.PF.
"What? No dimplomacy skill? Tough luck"
"No jump skill? Too bad, you're stuck now!"

>>50740054
This is how you're supposed to run basically all other OSR games as well.

>>50740123
Aye I'm aware, it's just that Torchbearer is the one example I can think of off the top of my head where it's codified into the rules.

>>50740060
You do not roll in that case at all, IF the candlestick is, in fact, the trigger. The GM describes the room and if they can find the secret door without a roll, FUCK YES. If not, they can roll. if it's a floor plate and they found it, the roll maybe so they can figure out what it does before it kills them by doing the floor plate wrong somehow (please remember that characters drop like flies in most OSR games) Some dungeons have totally random secret doors, so the roll actually creates the dungeon itself if there is a secret rolled successfully. For example a dungeon description may say: the first time a character rolls a successful secret door, X room appears, the second time on level 2, Y room appears.

File: IMG_0612.jpg (110KB, 1242x751px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1242x751px

>>50723514
Every negative OSR thread on here inevitably turns into a PRO OSR thread very quickly. There's a reason for this.

>>50740237
The anon you replied to knew this already. He was trying to explain to the other anon why "rolling and colorfully describe" doesn't work in OSR.

>>50740252

Its fanboys are loud and obnoxious?

>>50740746
That doesn't help Dungeon World threads.

>>50723514
Some like them because of the different mechanics, different lore, and easily modifiable nature that making creating content for them a breeze.

Others are just buttmad about 3.x/4e/PF and play them to "stick it to the man" just as some people play a f2p game as a "protest" against a p2p game.

Then there's a final group, getting up in years, desperately trying to rediscover the nostalgia-choked spark of fun they experienced as teens playing D&D.

>>50740746
Most of the people actually discussing it in this thread seem to be doing so rather civilly on both sides. Barring the occasional troll comment.

>>50738335
Then don't play OSR.
I don't like OSR games either, not even for dungeoneering, but don't be dense.

>>50739933
>having an idea of your capabilities and how they can be applied

I just want to comment on this part. In OSR, a character is assumed to be competent. Every level 1 character knows everything they need to that an adventurer would know. That would include things like riding a horse, using rope, climbing a tree, setting up camp, starting a fire, etc. There is no need for skills for any of these. You can just do them and automatically succeed (unless there are complications, of course). Look at the level titles as guidelines, even if you don't use them. They are means for telegraphing what the game expects from a character at that level. A level 1 fighter is a Veteran, at level 4 he is a Hero, at level 9 a Lord.

Thief skills were also originally meant to be supernatural and interpreted literally. Climb Sheer Surfaces was not a climbing skill. Everyone can climb, but only a thief can scale an impossible to climb sheer surface without any climbing gear. Hide in Shadows was not a hiding ability. Everyone can hide. Only the thief had the literal ability to hide in shadows. Yes, even at noon on clear day, all the thief needs is a sliver of shadow to completely disappear. That is why the thief skills are so low. If you interpret those abilities as mundane skills then the thief is absolutely worthless and the most incompetent class ever made.

>>50741613
You might then think, hang on, if a character is so competent, then why do they only have 1d6 HP and do 1d6 damage (in OD&D at least)? In OSR, combat is dangerous and chaotic, and no matter how competent and skilled you are at adventuring, at low levels you are still close to being an ordinary mortal. That is why combat is based off of a d20. At higher levels you become larger than life, with multiple attacks, level 4 Heroes give their followers a morale boost, level 8 Superheroes can inspire fear into their opponents and cause a morale check just by taking to the field. Playing smart means avoiding combat as much as possible and going for treasure, which gives you your bulk of XP. In OSR this works out fine because XP gained by killing is insignificant and actually wastes your time and will get you killed. It's also why wandering monsters are poor value for money, they actually don't have treasure on them but can whittle away your resources. On the other hand dying isn't a big deal, because character generation is quick and the exponential XP requirements means that a new character would quickly catch up with existing characters.

This brings up another issue, and something that is missing from modern D&D. The reaction roll, morale check and loyalty rules are absolutely essential to OSR. Not all monsters encountered will be unfriendly. How they react to you is determined by the reaction roll, which you can influence through your charisma bonus, negotiating, bribing or anything you can think of, and ranges from completely hostile to very friendly.
Morale and loyalty also means most monsters and followers won't fight to the death. Which makes sense and ties into the lethal combat system and since the bulk of your XP comes from treasure, you're not losing anything by letting them go or by running away yourselves.

>>50741809
Related to all this is time tracking and resource management. Torches and rations run out. Spells are used up. Wandering monster roam about.

My point is, all of this works together to make OSR what it is.

I know many people usually say that these systems are modular and you can mix and match what you want, and while that is true, I also disagree somewhat when it comes to dungeon crawling because all these subsystems, mentioned here and in previous comments by others, are connected, albeit loosely, feeding into each other in a sort of positive feedback loop. Leaving out a subsystem changes how the game is played and breaks these feedback loops. Try playing something like BD&D fully to understand how they work before changing the game to suit your tastes.

>>50740290
ah shit.

>>50732239
Depends on your definition of "weird fantasy." OD&D was most certainly an amalgamation based on the works of a lot of pulp, eldritch and weird fantasy authors of the 20th century, especially Dying Earth. There's a reason there was literally martians and androids in the Monsters and Treasure book.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess is weird but I feel it tries to hard to be gritty and dark, which stands a pretty stark contrast from (what I understand to be) the assumptions of OD&D's setting, which basically pulled from every source imaginable, including dinosaurs and robots, and didn't try so hard to be so grimdark and edgy.

>>50739781
It's roleplaying the wargaming sense. Is an orc player going to intentionally make bone-headed decisions which lose him the game because that's what an illiterate orc general would do? Of course not.

>>50740252
It's also talking about ~THE CULTURE~ rather than any intrinsic quality of the systems themselves.

>>50744055

LotFP is going for a cross between Hammer horror films and heavy metal album art, neither of which is big on magic robot wizards shooting dinosaurs with Martian-made pulse rifles. Which I guess can be a good thing, bad thing, or just a thing depending on your preferences.

File: Lost[1].jpg (330KB, 518x748px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 518x748px

>>50747454

>>50747622

Yeah, some folks have been pretty busy putting the crazy back in, so you can have it both ways.

>>50747783
Really only the art and some of the flavor text was ever actually grim-dark in the LotFP rule book. Most of it came from they modules published for it, but even then a lot of them are pretty gonzo and even some of the grim dark ones can be kind of funny at times like Doom Cave or FFS.

File: alienship_by_prabhudk-d8wina3.jpg (80KB, 1280x559px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1280x559px

>>50747622
This book rules, btw. Highly Recommended.

>>50723514
I'm a millennial who played ACKs and found a bunch of fasciating ideas that I had not seen in other games. It is complex, but not burdensome. Each mechanic and rule is relatively simple, and serves a clear purpose which furthers gameplay in an obvious way.

For space concerns, I'll list three ideas that I really like and are transferable to other games:

-The GMing philosophy associated with it. The rules only need to be used when the GM is not totally certain about what should happen next. I don't need to roll dice for players to see a paper on top of a desk when they are searching the desk; they just see it unless there's some element of uncertainty involved, like it being very dark or intentionally hidden. Same goes for other common-sense situations like hearing a non-suppressed gunshot or knowing basic facts related to your skills.

-Reaction rolls, which do several things: produce clear results that inform NPCs' opinions, allow different levels of abstraction, but are also simple and versatile enough to easily apply to many different situations and interactions. By using them primarily to determine first impressions, it's easy for a GM to reward players' investment in social stats (or highlight their neglect) without invalidating players' roleplay. And again, they're only meant to be used when the outcome isn't obvious; I don't need to roll for reaction when one of them tries to shout down a king.

-Simplified encumbrance. Instead of going pound-by-pound with every item in an unusable mess, it's an easier method that boils down to classifying and counting line items.

I wouldn't call myself nostalgic though: I don't want to compare weapon-vs-armor matrices for every fight, or work with speed factor, or be accused of devil-worship. RPGs have been making a lot of advances, especially in terms of fairness and ease-of-use. However, I think our hobby would do well to take the things I listed and carry them forward.

>>50723514
>OSR gaming seems like a vehicle for either rose-tinted nostalgia from players reminiscing on their younger days when they had lower standards, or players wanting to be cool and "old school."
Cool, you figured it out. Now go play something good and leave the OSR freaks to play their shitty cargo-cult-designed piles of dreck. No good can come from trying to drag them into the light of even decent game design.

>>50723514
Most OSR's are substantially simpler than 3.x and later. They also tend to be easier to houserule and make shit up for since there's a much lower chance you end up with unintended consequences.

Having played/run every edition of dnd, OSR's are good if you don't want to spend time min/maxing characters, want a relatively simple game and like to make stuff on your own.

If you're looking for character building (in the sense of builds) or tactical or balanced combat, OSR probably isn't what you're looking for.

File: 1480230662464.jpg (155KB, 1000x1605px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1000x1605px

Why does the pro-OSR side in this thread keep acting as if you either play OSR or you play 3.X/Pathfinder?

This is a false dichotomy at its finest.

>>50749692
Yeah, I don't really get why people get worked up over edition wars for dnd. The only really different dnd is 4th and it's a perfectly acceptable tactics game.

>>50749692
Sounds more like confirmation bias to me.

Most people play PF or 5E so when describing OSR it's easier to relate it to them.

>>50749692
I don't think anyone is saying that, but 3.pf is the easiest to bring up anti-osr mindset examples from. 4e and 5e also have things that don't fit the OSR mindset but they're generally seen as less of an issue. Many anon in /osrg/ will tell you that running OSR modules and playing with an OSR mindset works pretty well in 5e with just a few tweaks.

>>50749764
It's not an edition war. If anything it's a mindset war, but even then most people into OSR realize that there are other games and playstyles for other people but they'd rather play this way. It's not like OSR people will tell you to use OSR rules for every kind of game, like how GURPS people do.

>>50749764

Because 3e/4e/5e have very different playstyles than OD&D/Basic/1e. (With 2e in the middle) (For one thing, there's no game structures in them, they're all fairly loose you-can-do-anything muddles. 4e is better in that it wants to be a skirmisher, but it could really have used some stuff like win states IMO)

When someone wants to explain the reason for OSR, they'll want to contrast it with the thing that killed what the OSR is reviving, which is specifically 3e.

>>50749973
>they're all fairly loose you-can-do-anything muddles
More like hyper-focused on the dungeon crawling feedback loop with fairly loose you-can-do-anything-else-too added on.

>>50750034

That's OSR, 3e/4e/5e have no dungeon crawling game structure.

>>50749692
Because OSR is in many ways a reaction to 3.PF, and likes to contrast itself to those mechanics and playstyle

>>50750293
Gotta agree with this. They tend to be more focused games with rules that support the lore, as opposed to 3.x's rules that often seem unrelated to it.

Part of that is the culture that emerged around 3rd edition, which shouted down players and GMs that tried any kind of deviation from RAW, from restricting material in any way, or even making houserules to patch over some of the worst issues.

A lot of gamers have been frustrated by that and other problems over the past sixteen years, have worked to find or make better games, and that has fed the OSR movement. And I think that the OSR movement influenced the development of 5e, which took inspiration from D&D's roots even as it innovated, streamlined, and pushed the hobby forward.

>>50751934

>innovated, streamlined, and pushed the hobby forward.

Eurgh. 5e did none of those things, and I find it mind boggling that people think this.

5e isn't a bad game. But it isn't a good game either. It is aggressively, overwhelmingly bland, generic and safe. It does nothing new and has no real mechanical identity of its own. Its sole design purpose- Which it succeeds at very well- is to Feel like D&D.

5e boiled down D&D to elements that people remembered and felt familiar with, and then tied them together with a loose enough mechanical framework that you can play it almost any way you want, based on your memories and preferences of your favourite D&D. It's an ersatz system, a facsimile for you to project your preferences onto.

And that's... Fine. As annoyed as I am with the system (mostly because it did have a unique mechanical identity in the playtests that was then aggressively stripped out of it), from how well it's doing it's obvious the people behind it understood their market and built a system to cater to them. The system achieves its design goals admirably.

But it it is not in any way innovative. Streamlined, maybe, but pushing the hobby forward? Not a fucking chance.

File: 1475610065134.png (42KB, 249x284px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 249x284px

>>50752037
>5e does nothing new and has no real mechanical identity of its own

>>50752114

Not that guy, but name something it does that's new. The only unusual mechanic is advantage, which I'm pretty sure was introduced in an old Dragon magazine article long, long ago.
Bounded accuracy? Not new. Backgrounds? Not new. Class specializations? Not new.
Can you name something that's new and innovative? Because I can't think of anything.

>>50723903
I'd argue its what one may call second hand nostalgia. The sort of people who never saw Star Wars in theaters but say the originals were 'so much better' than Special Editions, etc.

>>50752201

Consider the possibility that what they're actually saying is that the originals are better than the prequels.

>>50752037
Honestly, even Advantage is just a bundling of things like Flat-Footed and Flanking together, and its not the first system to use 'favorable circumstances vs unfavorable circumstances.' It's just a very radically simplified one.

>>50752297
I mean, I suppose I should be clear I'm not necessarily saying they are wrong. Like, we say 'nostalgia' as a pejorative but isn't intrinsically so.

>>50723877
AD&D isn't OSR

>>50738896
http://danbooru.donmai.us/posts/2371564

Because someone over the internet feels kind enough to use yandex today.

I like OSR, primarily because OSR games don't shy away from the fact that they are games. There is no pretense of them being collaborative fiction. They are adventure games first and foremost, and roleplaying games second. OSR is made more enjoyable by roleplaying your characters, but that isn't what the game is about--it's about exploration and discovery, poking around in scary holes in the ground for loot, and fighting monsters. The point of OSR games is to overcome a challenge, and the story is a byproduct of that.

>>50747454
At least half of the LotFP material available is about dinos and robot wizards though.

>>50752037
>mostly because it did have a unique mechanical identity in the playtests
Where can I find out more about this?

>>50752830

The old playtest documents are probably still floating around somewhere. I just remember the various awesome things that were steadily removed, like Fighter Expertise Dice being refreshed every round and actually giving Martial characters an interesting and reliable source of combat utility, or the fucking Dragon Sorceror, who developed draconic manifestations as spent spell points, turning into a solid second-line fighter by the time they were completely dry.

>>50752804

Yeah, that's because you can try to take the gonzo out of old-school, but it just creeps right back in. And while Raggi was pushing for a weird 17th century horror aesthetic, he's too smart to refuse to publish modules that other people write for him just because they're swarming with magic robots.

>>50723764
Waat

Take a look at BFRPG and tell me what's so complex about it's rules.

Ps its free to download on their homepage.

File: 12795451_10206610161195994_6529448215272920988_n.jpg (22KB, 476x477px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 476x477px

>>50730182
> "referee"

File: cat disgust_2.jpg (7KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 200x200px

>>50753442
>A millennial

>>50740778
Dungeon World is not OSR.

>>50754130
Seems to be, game based on vague bullshit and fiat, focus on dungeons, rules-lite and played only by fat fucks who won't leave their groove.

>>50754164
>people have wrongbadfun and I hate that!

>>50754164
It's not. The system and the gameplay it creates is as modern as it gets. The mechanics are pretty poorly playtested also.

It's nothing like old school D&D even though the authors want people to think it is. Anyone who's trying to tell you it's a game with old school feel is a shill.

>>50752668
>every OSR game borrows from AD&D and not OD&D but AD&D isn't OSR

>>50724028
this me

>>50754130
I never said that.

>>50730250
I'm honestly just surprised at how many people are jumping out of the woodwork to defend greatglorious OSR.

Also, Sine Nomine a shit.

>>50754218
OSR games are primarily based on Basic D&D which isn't OD&D nor AD&D. It is true however that certain stuff from both those games gets borrowed in some retroclones.

>>50754318
This.

>>50753442
Referee is a good word in describing the way of thinking in OSR and how to approach DMing. The DM is a referee, a neutral arbiter of events, neither for or against the players, whose purpose is to bring the world alive through the available tools such as random tables, wandering monster tables, reaction rolls, etc.
It ties into the idea emergent narrative rather than preplanned narrative. OSR is not like a book or a movie and the GM is not a director like you find in new school narrative games.

>>50754379

GMs in modern games aren't necessarily 'directors' either. Most modern games advocate a more collaborative approach, with everyone working together to create the story. It's not a preplanned narrative, it is in many ways emergent, but it emerges from players ideas and actions interacting with each other, rather than from any randomisation the system provides.

>>50733054
>LotFP
>not a bloated mess
I know you're trolling but please try harder

>>50754932
I can understand not liking LotFP, but how is bloated?

File: LotFP_Rules_&_Magic_Free_Version.pdf (1B, 486x500px)

1B, 486x500px

>>50754932
>LotFP
>bloated

What in the fuck are you talking about?

>>50755172
It's bloated in the way retroclones usually are. The things that were clearly lifted and/or adapted from previous games are polished and streamlined because the author has a pretty good idea of how to fix them, and he usually succeeds. But then he forgets to apply the same mentality to the completely original bits, and he
fucks it up by adding a shitload of needless details, unnecessary rules, and so on.

In LotFP's case, the Summon spell is a prime example. Big flashy spell, designed to summon and preferably control an eldritch monster! Set at level 1, so even your pissant, newly created caster can tempt fate! Full of charts and dice rolls to determine exactly how many slimy appendages the monster has, and whether they're dripping blood, made of smoke, or on fire! Shit, let's summon some frog demons!
...But then you start actually reading the bloody spell's description and it's nine pages long and you have to go through a hilariously long series of hoops and you roll and you roll and you know what, fuck this, let's cast magic missile instead.
The result? You've got a cool spell that no one ever uses because it's too bloody long to make sense of. If the rules were more user friendly, it would be used more.

>>50724696
> because my group refuses to go back to Traveller after the last time
What happened last time?

>>50755412
The summon spell is intentionally made arcane and bloated, because it fits the theme.

Not saying it's good design, but if you say the entire system is bloated because of some spells, you are missing the fucking point of those spells.

>>50723514
> rules-lite players aren't going to prefer "figure out how this works yourself and make rulings"

> Stars Without Number
> a daunting mass of rules

> nostalgia shaming

OP, what you have is called an "opinion," and it's a very bland, broad, and ill informed one at that. I honestly don't know that I could form a functional argument, but only because I honestly can't fathom your reasoning. I must say your argument makes it sound like you maybe skimmed over a corebook or two and then formed a unifying opinion on the entire OSR scene, and that generally the odd few that do have "mountains of weirdly specific, nitty gritty rules and disjointed subsystems," tend to be the less popular. The idea is to have specific mechanics for things that would have very specific consequences, if only to suggest a course of action in such situations, and to make sure they have consistent consequences whenever they do come up; things like drowning, starving, or tracking. Things that don't really work as one-roll resolutions, and that would have consequences that could not be easily represented by taking X amount of Y damage, or a "you-did-or-you-didn't" resolution, but leave the rest quite specifically up to "figure out how this works yourself and make rulings," because that's generally what OSR players are looking for. That's what my group looks for in them anyway. Then you have games like Hack Master who go in the opposite route, but again that's not a "worst of both worlds," situation either, because it leaves much less open to interpretation.

>>50754392
The GM in modern D&D is very much a director though, with its focus on serving four level-appropriate encounters per session.

>>50755412
>Being so retarded you can't even figure out how rolling a couple of tables works.

Seriously, it's just that, a couple of tables. You don't need to read anything beyond the first 2 pages until it comes up.

>>50755412
Summon spell is intentionally complicated and random, but if my memory serves me correctly, there's mention of the fact that if you wanna summon something specific, it's gonna be another, higher level spell.

>>50752037

Yeah, but the one thing it DID do well was tie its action economy in with Battle Century G. Hell, its action economy and combat modifier mechanics are pretty much ripped STRAIGHT outta BCG.

I'm gonna fuck those game's shit up and see what comes out.

File: MORT - Copy (61).png (574KB, 795x720px) Image search: [Google]

574KB, 795x720px

>>50752114
>it's a retard posts smug anime girls while not knowing anything of what he's talking about and not refuting a single claim with any facts episode

o im laffin

File: animu girl laughing animu girls_1.gif (753KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

753KB, 500x281px

>>50755460
>"It's *supposed* to be arcane and bloated!"
>>50756063
>"Wow dude okay yeah it's arcane and bloated but it's not *that* bad!"
>>50756778
>It's *supposed* to be arcane and bloated!"

This is why people mock OSR babbies.

>>50749671
>there is only D&D
I find you people genuinely pathetic.

>>50757282
>Just like ever other anime poster in this thread he adds nothing to the discussion other then blatantly inflammatory troll comments.

>>50757282

One spell, intended to be unpredictable and dangerous, is not the entire system. Only a lunatic would try to claim that LotFP is bloated.

>>50757333
No one in this thread said that.

>>50757429
>why do people play osr
>because this slightly different edition of d&d is complicated by comparison
>if you want things, osr has them but d&d doesn't
Complete and total ignorance of games outside the deendeerone-sphere.

>>50757485
It's already been said in this thread that comparing it to the RPGs most people play, ie PF and 5E, helps people understand it better.

>>50757282
The fuck is arcane about it? Do you only play 1 page system and freeform? jfc

>>50755460

If what you say is true and the summon spell was intentionally written to be hard to understand, then that's bad design, pure and simple. If I wanted to put a cool option in my game for my players to use, but i intentionally make it hard for them to understand how to use it, then my players are going to do something else and I just wasted valuable space to describe a useless thing. And making something sound "arcane" shouldn't mean "make it intentionally hard to interpret".

The basic building blocks of LotFP are fine, mostly, though as I said earlier, I don't think that's due to Raggi's amazing game-designing abilities. He merely took a tried and true system and polished it off. The bits he did come up with on his own stick out like a sore thumb - for instance, there's like a couple pages full of rules for investing, giving tithes and paying your taxes. Nothing says "adventuring beyond the fringes of civilization and delving into musty dungeons inhabited by pants-shittingly terrifying Lovecraftian creatures" quite like than hiring an accountant to fill your tax reports and check whether you go bankrupt, am I right? Does that fit the theme?

>>50757945
>the summon spell was intentionally written to be hard to understand

It's not hard to understand, though, it's just a series of tables you roll on to see what kind of horrific thing from beyond you just summoned, and whether it's going to turn on you and eat you or not.

>>50757945
For your first point, the spell isn't made to be hard to understand; it's not in the slightest. It's literally random tables, the idea behind the spell is that it's completely randomized because magic is dangerous and unpredictable and generally weird, as per the assumed setting of the system.

For your second point, you seem to be lacking basic knowledge of high-level D&D before 3.5.

In old school D&D, eventually you'd reach name level, which was essentially when your character would start to attract a band of followers and be allowed investiture in property and the construction of such, as it was assumed at the time that eventually, characters got so powerful that you didn't really need to care about delving into some random fucking dungeon anymore, your magical loot and prestige basically made you a regional power. If you actually understood this, you'd know that the rules on taxation and investment are not for low-level mooks who'd be poking around in fantasy-vietnamland, but rather, for characters that had survived so long and grown so powerful that they had such wealth to throw about where things like taxes and investment actually mattered.

So yes, it does fit the theme, because the base assumption of old school D&D was:
foolhardy commoner who was probably going to die ----> smarter and less squishy adventurer ----> the magical equivalent of tycoon capitalists and oil barons who basically had control over some region of land and faced domain-level threats, and didn't go into a dungeon except if there was enormous profit to be made.

Please actually try to learn about the system that you want to say is shit instead of reading 5 pages, cherrypicking elements that you don't fully understand the purpose of and trying to come off as if your shitty, ill-informed opinion actually has any merit.

File: 1423330734506.jpg (420KB, 891x1200px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 891x1200px

>>50723514
Most OSR isn't that crunch heavy but the crunch that is there focuses on physical, measurable things in the game world. This differed from your average "narrative" game in that it the mechanics the players interact with ARE part of the world they are trying to effect and not some meta-thing.

The resolution systems are disjointed but they also make different tasks feel different and in some cases resolve in more logical way than what a "one size fits all" rule could handle. This approach is also modulate so systems can be mixed and matched between OSR games.

While the rules for resolution and adventuring are interchangeable and often obscured to the players they take president over the rules for classes and character creation. The game is about players interacting with the world, not with their character sheets. The GM has vast array of tools that can be used or not depending on his judgement. Because the game isn't built around the hard interaction of class abilities and mechanics it means the GM and the players can use their judgement to resolve situations without breaking the game.

Essentially the rules exist to resolve things the players can't resolve themselves.

>>50730499
>Based on OD&D, Basic D&D and rarely but sometimes AD&D
Why is AD&D so shunned? Wasn't 1e the version most people played?

And wasn't B/X always considered kiddie D&D?

>>50757374
>Just like every other OSR babbie in this thread he lacks the self awareness to realize that telling people that the shitty parts of their hobby is a feature not a bug just makes it evident that OSR is shit

>>50757380
He used the spell as an example. You still haven't proven him wrong.

>>50758212
>He used the spell as an example. You still haven't proven him wrong.

That's called "cherrypicking" anon. It's probably the longest chunk of rules in the entire book, and it's still not even difficult to understand, it's just a lot of tables.
If he wants to show that LotFP is "bloated" he needs to stop being dishonest. Also, it's not my job to prove anything, anyone can read the rules and see for themselves.

>>50758188
Nowadays, people just see the AD&D rulebooks as pretty convoluted and self-contradictory, which they are. I personally love AD&D, but the idea behind this stigma is that 1e is where the game started to go downhill, with numerous rules for arbitrary shit and rules that were difficult to understand for most (grappling and aerial combat especially).

I personally think that the rulebooks of AD&D are a wonder to look at and read, but the organization of the rules is more horrid than the OD&D LBBs and playing AD&D RAW is something basically nobody did. Most people who played AD&D probably played a stripped down version that resembled Basic D&D more than it did RAW AD&D, especially in regards to combat, which to this day is still heavily debated as to how exactly things are conducted on a referee to referee basis.

That being said, the 1e DMG is something I thing everyone should read regardless of system, and the tables therein are so inspiring and useful that no matter which game I run, I always have it with me for reference. Never know when you're going to need a random harlot encounter, and when you're going to need to roll off to see if you meet a saucy tart or a sly pimp.

>>50758212
>Someone asks why people prefer OSR
>People who like OSR try to explain why they prefer it.
>B-B-BUT THOSE REASONS ARE SHIT!!!
>Why?
>BECAUSE THEY ARE!!!

>>50758340
>Someone asks why people prefer OSR
>BECAUSE YOU CAN DO X, Y, AND Z WITH THEM
>You can do that in any system.
>N-N-N-NO!!! ONLY OSR CAN!!! STOP TROLLING!!!

FTFY

>>50758422
It's not that you CAN'T do them in other systems. It's just that OSR systems are built around them and generally they work better because of it.

>>50738674
How don't they make sense? An untrapped chest would be looted unless it was either heavily guarded or deep/hidden enough in the dungeon that presumably no previous parties had ever stumbled onto it.

And opportunity cost between magical vs. physical traps isn't relevant. You can imagine having access to reliable enchantment is a rarity compared to anyone with the know-how to rig a trap.

>>50757986

False. You have to, in order,

-Decide how many HD's worth of eldritch meat you're going to summon (no more than twice your level)

-Decide whether you're going to build a magic circle / sacrifice some dudes to help with your casting, and calculate the bonuses that gives you (skipping six pages ahead in the process because fuck doing things in order)

-Make a saving throw against Magic: roll 1d12 if you win, 1d20 if you lose. This determines the creature's form, except it doesn't because there are actually a number of possible forms the creature can take. How is this determined? I'm guessing you pick what you like best.

-Unless you rolled 20, you get to roll another die (that changes depending on how many HD the creature has) to determine how many appendages the creature has (if you rolled 20, you fucked up royally and accidentally summon some abstract concept instead). Actually wait, you must roll that die at least twice: everytime the result is less than the first die result, the creature gets a new appendage, and you roll one more time until you beat the first roll.

-For every appendage, roll 3d6.

-Now it's time to roll the powers, and you get to do the same rigamarole: roll at least two dice (again, basing on the creature's HD) and the beastie gets a new power everytime you roll under. Or at least you'd think! It only works that way if the initial saving throw (step 3) was successful. If you FAILED your initial saving throw, then the creature gets a new power if you roll under or equal to the first roll. So wait - you'll say - if my initial roll was the maximum possible roll, it means I'm screwed! Well, no - you keep rolling until you get a 1. This is needlessly complicated and a sensible game designer would have cut it.

-For every power, roll 1d100. (CONT.D)

-Now, domination rolls. The caster goes first and rolls 1d20, adding the bonuses from step 2. The monster goes second, adding its own HD. And it also gets +1 for every power.

-Margins of victory! Compare the two results. If you win, calculate the difference between the two rolls, roll that many d10s, and that's how long the creature stays in our dimension. You must concentrate for this many rounds otherwise the domination rolls must be repeated to see if you keep control or if the creature breaks free and tries to eat your face. If you win by (5 + creature’s Hit Dice + the number of its Powers), you have won by a Great Margin and you can demand a longer service (how long?) without having to concentrate to control the fucker. If you win by a margin of 19 or more, or double a Great Margin (so which is it? One or the other?), the creature is bound permanently and you have a pet demon.

-If the creature wins, it tries to eat your face. If it wins by a Great Margin (equal to or greater than, in this case, 5 + Magic-User's Hit Dice + Sacrifice + Thaumaturgic Circle modifiers), the creature dominates you and you get to roll 1d6 to see what happens: you either cease to exist, your character becomes an NPC (2 in 6 chance), summon 1d10 more demons (so you have the supreme pleasure of doing all this shit again 1d10 times), every member of the party gets reincarnated into one another (screwing cleric PCs over in the process), or you must sacrifice a PC friend to avoid a TPK. If the creature wins by a massive margin, it makes a 1d20 roll and unless it rolls 20, it gets 1d4+1 HD and you have to reroll its powers (!). If it rolls 20 it's TPK because the dimensional barrier explodes and you summon the legions of hell.

>>50757986

So you see, this is not "a series of tables you roll on to see what kind of horrific thing from beyond you just summoned, and whether it's going to turn on you and eat you or not.". This is an abomination of game design that takes 10 steps to properly unfold and which any sensible game designer would have nipped in the bud or at least done a massive, massive pruning of. It's so bad that there are dedicated online calculators for it.

I can't believe anyone would look at this shit and say "yep, sure looks easy to me. Can't wait to summon a monster!". No player will choose to cast this spell more than once, especially since there's a pretty good chance that you'll get screwed anyway and you would be masochistic in more ways than one to try.

>>50759079
>>50759123

I'll grant that it's been a while since I read the spell, but it's still total cherrypicking. It's the most complicated bit in the entire system, and your players are SUPPOSED to be wary of ever casting the damn thing because it's built to be dangerous. The spell's whole purpose is as a nuclear option that a mage (even at level 1) can pull out if all else has failed.

>>50758212
I linked the rules here:
>>50755373

I can't prove a negative but no sane person can conclude that those rules, in aggregate, are bloated.

I actually agree that the Summon spell is useless in play because of the generation complexity (I'd just roll a couple up before the game). It's a bad design from that perspective. But that's the only part in the entire game that's like that.

>>50759162

None of that stops it being a misshapen abomination of shitty, overwrought game design.

File: 14937234_10154057248560886_1731882749198148635_n.jpg (56KB, 462x960px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 462x960px

OSR is better because I fucking said so. No, seriously. The same reason I think Irish women are the sexiest and prefer milk in my coffee. It's a matter of taste. I don't feel the need to memorize or reference a 500 page tome to find some asinine micro-rule. I want a foundation, not a house. I want something I can bend to my needs without it fucking up the game.

OSR = PC
Modern = Mac

>>50758137

Please don't put word in my mouth, dingus. If you'd read what I wrote, you'd notice that I'm not dissing on the retainer rules. I'm questioning the taxation and investment rules.

The way the character classes in LotfP are described, they're not supposed to be OSR adventurers. Raggi said that adventurers in his game are basically people who are unfit for civil society and everyday life. The fighter is a warrior with fantasy PTSD. The magic user is cast out because he communes with dark powers. The Cleric and the Specialist are the only ones to whom these rules are suitable, and it's stretching it in the Cleric's case since he's supposed to be a holy warrior on a crusade or something.

>>50759202

Yeah, you could argue that, and I'd call it a fair assessment.
I'd also say that it's like that primarily as a warning because it's potentially game- or adventure-breaking to cast. It's likely to either totally save your party's bacon or unleash something horrible on the world, so you'd better think hard about whether or not you really want to cast it.

>>50759202
http://summon.totalpartykill.ca/

I always just use this cause it's quicker.

>>50759079
>>50759100
>>50759123
It's a lot of small numbers, but math doesn't go beyond adding them together.
It's simple.

>>50759162
To reiterate what i said earlier, I agree with you that most of LotfP is gameworthy, but that's because all its basic building blocks were done better by other people. It's the things that Raggi himself adds that are shit. Imaginative, yes - and I actually LIKE the concept behind the Summon spell - but mechanically, they're shit.

>>50759249
No, if you had actually read what I wrote, you'd see that I addressed the rules on taxation and investment, and wasn't making any claim on your understanding of the retainer rules. My point was ultimately that, those rules pertaining to financing merely exist for the characters that reach those echelons of power, and matter when the players reach that level. The only thing that makes this unique from actual old school D&D is simply that it includes the mechanics for it, whereas OD&D and AD&D merely suggested that such rules be arbitrated by the DM.

And how are outcasts NOT OSR adventurers? One of the most common backstories for an adventurer is the archetypal outcast, seeking wealth in the dangerous caverns below the mystical land of whatever-the-fuck because he can't make a living elsewhere.

>>50759289

But you see, you have to rely on a third party to cast the spell. That's good in practice, because you generate your spell quickly, but it's terrible in theory, because the game discourages you from going through the hassle yourself.

>>50759315

This i can agree with, sorta. It's simple in the same ways doing triangular equations is easy.

I mean, I get that there are better games suited for certain situations; but what if I just want to get some friends together, roll some characters, loot a dungeon, and be able to track time, torches, wandering monsters and other resources in a consistent and nice and game-like manner, without all kinds of "story" mechanics or overly fiddly combat slowing us down? That is what OSR games do for me.

>>50759289

It's faster, but it kinda takes the magic out of it. It's supposed to be a portentous moment, an elaborate magical ritual you all go through to find out if your mage's desperate action is going to save you all, or result in a TPK. (Which is why you should probably only bust it out if a TPK looks to be in the cards anyway)
It should take a while, IMO, because it's liable to be a momentous event, and reducing it to "flip a coin" robs it of suspense.