The state of Post-OSR content

[DangerousPuhson]

"Oh no you don't!"
"Hey! This is my character and that's what he's doing. Also, you're not the DM. Why do you care?"
It was a minor dustup, and really of the other player hadn't made a big deal about it then it wouldn't have been an issue.

How would you have reacted to that, as a DM in that situation?

What's there to react to? Players disagreeing about something is wholly normal - your job as the DM is not to squash all their grievances and wrangle their playstyles, but rather to arbitrate their actions when they finally choose to act. There's nothing mechanical saying a player can't take trophy teeth, so there's nothing for the DM to arbitrate and no reason to become reactive.

Yes, people like to assign the DM the role of peacemaker in the group (the DM "harmony sidebar"), but honestly, a group of adults should be able to work out the constant little disagreements like these without intercession - if they can't, then you're honestly better off not playing with those people; some folk just can't hack collaborative group gaming.

 

[squeen]

I think everything @The Heretic and @EOTB wrote is perfectly fine.

Take the teeth / shut the door.
Distrust halflings / talk about strategic distribution of XP.

These things are not at odds with good D&D to me.

 

[The Heretic]

What's there to react to? Players disagreeing about something is wholly normal - your job as the DM is not to squash all their grievances and wrangle their playstyles, but rather to arbitrate their actions when they finally choose to act. There's nothing mechanical saying a player can't take trophy teeth, so there's nothing for the DM to arbitrate and no reason to become reactive.

Reaction doesn't necessarily include an action. I was wondering how he'd feel about a player doing something like that. For most player disputes, yes there is no reason for the DM to intervene. Now if this argument turned into a Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck "Duck Season!" "No! Rabbit Season!" farce that was starting to take up everyone's valuable time, then yes, DM intervention would be a must.

Also, in many ways the DM is the de facto leader of the gaming group. Theoretically I could've been disinvited by the DM, especially since the game was run at his house.

The funny thing is that I joined this group at the tail end of another 4e campaign (at the same guy's house, but different DM), and after I had mentioned how abrasive this player was there was a short 'impeachment' push to get rid of him, because apparently a number of people felt the same way. It didn't happen though. Eventually he got too busy and went away on his own. Interesting fellow, but abrasive and too much of a rules lawyer.

But anyway I was more interested in @EOTB's mental reaction to my attempt at roleplaying. Would he have felt that I was a disruptive player? And the answer was no.

 

[The Heretic]

Short aside: Another player who was in that group (the 4e) is in my PFRPG group. In one of the last sessions before that game when on hiatus, he sort of replicated my dragonborn's actions.

"The wizard falls dead to your axe."
"I cut off and take his head."

Later they were talking to a slave girl that this wizard had.
"'I am too afraid. How do I know that the wizard is dead?'"
"You can take our word for it, we killed him."
"Didn't you say you took his head? You could show that to her."
"Did I say that?"
"Yes! You said you cut off and took his head!"
"Okay then, I take the head out of my bag and show her."
"She screams and faints!"

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

I keep on meaning to blog about this (aka writing entries and then deleting them) but I think there are about five broad playcultures in RPGs that I know of (I'm open to others existing) and then a brief period (1974-1982) before any of them firmly crystallised. The Elusive Shift seems to be about that period and how "trad" crystallised out of it as a distinct culture of play that generated individual "trad" styles.

1) Trad (crystallised in 1983-1984 with Ravenloft / Dragonlance) sees the game as fundamentally about telling a story, with the DM as the primary creator of that story
2) Nordic LARP - formed out of trad in the late 1990s by emphasising the "immersion" element over everything else
3) Storygames - formed out of trad in the early 2000s around various strategies to minimise "ludonarrative dissonance"
4) OSR - formed in the mid-2000s and really crystallised around 2008-2010 as an imaginative reconstruction of the time prior to trad
5) Neo-trad / "OC RPG" which crystallised somewhere during D&D 3.x, where the players are the primary creators of the story and the DM exists to curate and facilitate that process (the inversion of trad)

Games may provide affordances or resistance to one style of play or another, but the basic element of analysis here is the culture itself and the people who adopt its norms.

Anyhow, it seems like we're having a clash of different playcultures, with DP upholding neo-trad norms against the Heretic, who is advocating what is very clearly a trad position. This is quite common bc neo-trad uses the same terminology as trad does, but it uses those same terms to mean different things, and is sensitive to, and invested in resolving, a different set of problems with those terms and ideas.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Interesting take. You've given me quite a bit to digest there.

EDIT: That's quite an astute (albeit roundabout) way of saying there's a clash of game styles going on, and I agree wholeheartedly that you may have touched on the raw nerve of things - a fundamental unalignment of what the game actually is. Problem was the classic game did such a bad job of actually showing you how the game is meant to be played (by no fault of its own; D&D would have been even bigger if YouTube walkthroughs and their ilk were around in the 80s). Consequently everyone defines what the game is supposed to be differently; we're all just making it up from our own experiences and preferences.

This intrinsic difference inevitably leads to conflict, especially when confined and forced to fight gladiatorially among the opinions of everyone else who, like you, has only their own definition of what the game is supposed to be.

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

Just to really see how far I can shove my head up my own ass: I think styles derive from cultures. Once you're in the trad culture, you have a set of problems like "If the DM is the primary imaginative actor, what exactly are the players here to do?" and the specific resolution you put on that is your style of trad. In the OSR you have people like me who really love procedures and structure, and people like my friends who do Free Kriegspiel who basically adopt and abandon subsystems at a whim. Same culture, shared "problematic" (in the technical, not the internet, sense, of a field of questions and problems), but different styles in our answers and responses to them.

 

[The Heretic]

Well, that's an oversimplification but basically true. I got into the game around that time. 1st Edition and BECMI. Me and my friends got into the game without mentors, so we didn't understand how different our game was from Gary's. In fact, we didn't understand that the game that well period. It was only after I started reading the tutorial that things clicked. "You mean AC actually means something, you don't have to roll above a person's strength to hit them?"
I was intrigued from the beginning by the possibility of using the game to tell a story.

Trying out the OSR way has been a struggle. I always wanted to the PCs to win and level. Leveling is hard when you die all the time. Therefore I tend to want to be too soft like in my example above with the 2d4 damage Moktar attack.

(but also, this forum, like all other forum through the mists of time, is filled with clashing personalities. Of course there's going to be drama)

 

[The Heretic]

Just to really see how far I can shove my head up my own ass: I think styles derive from cultures. Once you're in the trad culture, you have a set of problems like "If the DM is the primary imaginative actor, what exactly are the players here to do?" and the specific resolution you put on that is your style of trad. In the OSR you have people like me who really love procedures and structure, and people like my friends who do Free Kriegspiel who basically adopt and abandon subsystems at a whim. Same culture, shared "problematic" (in the technical, not the internet, sense, of a field of questions and problems), but different styles in our answers and responses to them.

Actually, my problem has been that it has been hard to engage the players in my campaign worlds. I guess I wasn't so much into for the plots as I was hoping that they'd interact with the setting. Most players are waiting for you to hand wave them through the motions. They're there for the combat.

 

[The Heretic]

Squeen made a comparison between newer versions of the game and video games. I don't necessarily agree with his metaphor, but I think it is a good comparison to explore.
OSR games are like the video games of the late 70's/early 80's. Like the game Berzerk. The little man you control doesn't really matter. Getting to the end of the maze is. You lost three quarters (and 20 seconds) but now you can make it to level 2 with ease. Sweet! You're winning.
By 2nd edition, D&D started to resemble games like Legend to Zelda. You had a personality. You had a back story. The dungeons only existed to move the plot forward. You actually win the game in the end.
I suppose even later versions mirrored the complexities of games like Final Fantasy.
Now, when younger people come into the game, they're expecting Elder Scrolls or WoW. It's hard for them to get into Berzerk/OSR.

The thing about using Labyrinth Lord is that it seems like I'm going back to Berzerk. It's fun to play for a little while, but eventually I'll get bored by its limitations. I'm hoping to give my players the thrills of getting through to the 5th level of Berzerk. You made it pretty far, even though this thing's been trying to kill you the whole time!

Truthfully though, the better comparison is probably Sword of Fargoal/Rogue vs Nethack. OSR is Nethack. OD&D and BECMI are Rogue. LL is OSR but it's based on Moldvay's precursor to BECMI. It's like trying to go back to Rogue when I've been playing Nethack and Final Fantasy III.

 

[EOTB]

I think people coming back to earlier styles from later styles can confuse character death with character gone. Early D&D often had character death. It also routinely granted the raising of the dead, in return for a service if unable to pay, and wishes were thrown around quite frequently.

The point isn't that characters go poof often, its that they are not saved from danger. Every time you die, there's an increasing chance no one can reach out and take your king out of check. And death is check, not checkmate. If a party doesn't have a dozen+ returns from the dead spread over 4-6 characters, then no, the game is not played in the "old school way". But character death also is often very clarifying to the player as to what is not a Good Idea, in game. It's part of what gave you the knowledge to use in a meta way to become a "superior player". Sure, sometimes the odds are simply not in your favor. But part of the game is tilting the odds in your favor as often as possible.

 

[The1True]

Believing that roleplaying are just players trying to monopolize the game with assholery...or that they are all into theater and dramatics, is like me saying metagamers all sit around the table each with their own opened Monster Manual and DMs guide as well as a copy of the adventure they are going on. Pretty ridiculous, no?

I feel like we're arguing for the same thing here. We both agree that player agency is paramount. And I think we both agree that rules knowledge bleeding into character actions (which is my interpretation of metagaming) is mostly fine as long as it's not a player actively beating the DM over the head with a Monster Manual.

We're having some disagreement about Rrrrrroleplaying which I have definitely denigrated in the past. My group prefers it in small quantities which is definitely a matter of preference and I cast no aspersions on any groups out there that like to act things out and wear a funny hat to the table. What I am shitting on here though is players engaging in PK or serious acts of greed or just splitting off from the group in fits of pique that impact other player's enjoyment of the game, and then hide behind the statement "but that's what my guy would do".

A big betrayal or sneaky theft or the group splitting up once in a loooong while with strong support from the plot and the DM is cool; there's exceptions for everything for sure! But some players just bring unnecessary draHma to a table that just wants to town and down, and those people need a talking to if they don't just get flat-out uninvited to future sessions.

 

[The1True]

Also, in many ways the DM is the de facto leader of the gaming group. Theoretically I could've been disinvited by the DM, especially since the game was run at his house.

Now this is a real concern. There are so many articles out there talking about quitting groups or dumping troublesome players as if there are plenty of fish in the sea, and I don't think they take into account how even in this glorious, geeky new age it can still be a real bitch to find a good gaming group/find enough players to flesh out your own group. So yeah, most of us here are old enough to have been through the times of scarcity and know what it is to keep an utterly toxic player at the table or to play at someone else's utterly toxic table because there really was no alternative.

I feel you man. I have to play on a VTT, long distance with my old group and arguments feel so much more precarious when people can just close their browser/lock you out of the game on a whim. Similarly if you don't know a new group very well and you're just trying to get your D&D 'fix', there's a real incentive to bow to otherwise annoying rulings/players.

 

[The1True]

1) Trad (crystallised in 1983-1984 with Ravenloft / Dragonlance) sees the game as fundamentally about telling a story, with the DM as the primary creator of that story
2) Nordic LARP - formed out of trad in the late 1990s by emphasising the "immersion" element over everything else
3) Storygames - formed out of trad in the early 2000s around various strategies to minimise "ludonarrative dissonance"
4) OSR - formed in the mid-2000s and really crystallised around 2008-2010 as an imaginative reconstruction of the time prior to trad
5) Neo-trad / "OC RPG" which crystallised somewhere during D&D 3.x, where the players are the primary creators of the story and the DM exists to curate and facilitate that process (the inversion of trad)

'Trad'?
'Ludonarrative dissonance'?

Anyhow, it seems like we're having a clash of different playcultures, with DP upholding neo-trad norms against the Heretic, who is advocating what is very clearly a trad position. This is quite common bc neo-trad uses the same terminology as trad does, but it uses those same terms to mean different things, and is sensitive to, and invested in resolving, a different set of problems with those terms and ideas.

Actually, I could use an expansion on all of this. Very interesting.

 

[squeen]

1) Trad (crystallised in 1983-1984 with Ravenloft / Dragonlance) sees the game as fundamentally about telling a story, with the DM as the primary creator of that story
2) Nordic LARP - formed out of trad in the late 1990s by emphasising the "immersion" element over everything else
3) Storygames - formed out of trad in the early 2000s around various strategies to minimise "ludonarrative dissonance"
4) OSR - formed in the mid-2000s and really crystallised around 2008-2010 as an imaginative reconstruction of the time prior to trad
5) Neo-trad / "OC RPG" which crystallised somewhere during D&D 3.x, where the players are the primary creators of the story and the DM exists to curate and facilitate that process (the inversion of trad)

Really interesting stuff Pseudo! But I'm with @The1True : what does "trad" stand for? "(greek) tragedy?" LARP? ludonarrative? Whew!

I never thought of my play-style as OSR, just OD&D/AD&D ... definitely NOT B/X that's when the shift started IMO! Since returning to the hobby I've been trying to recreate that --- shooting for what Trent called his "Post-reboot structured campaign, Gygax style".

Your taxonomy is illuminating --- as I think the reason I could never get in to D&D with other folks in college (late 80's) is because the shift had occurred and I couldn't handle your "trad" style. It was too weirdly character-fetish-ed for my tastes. Or does that make it "neo-trad"? Whatever the style --- OD&D sensibilities were gone.

@The Heretic : Around 1980 I used to play a version of nethack---then just called "hack" as there was no internet...just dial-up 300 baud bulletin boards in kids' bedrooms. That was totally (computer-simplified) D&D. Frequent death. Little or no instructions of hand-holding. Exploration. Wild and cool magic items. etc. Like OD&D you died a ton until your character found an item or two that would "save" him from crisis moments --- like a wand of cold. Then rather then dying on the 1st few levels you could make it really far....until your wand ran out of charges or you accidentally bounced it back into your face. What a thrill ride it was when you'd finally get a "keeper". My friend would sometimes call me excitedly on the phone when this happened so he could "talk through" the big decisions. I'd "play" it blind with him...unable to witness the amazing ASCIII graphics in person.
-.------
|.(..$.|
.f@.....
|......|
|......|
--------
However, some years later "hack" got renamed "Rogue". The game was identical, so your analogy confuse me.

Lastly, with regards to OD&D being Berzerk: yes. It can be. But only at the beginning. (Also Berzerk lacks the exploratory aspect...it's all combat...so not quite a perfect analogy. Some of my DM's dungeons were more immediately dangerous than others. We got to choose.)

However, once a character "sticks" or even if just enough of your group gets past the lowest levels, then the game really takes off---like that nethack example. Then the "party" has continuity, the narrative gets long---REALLY REALLY LONG---and you start to get all tangled up in the "big picture" problems of the world. That's the whole "Greater D&D" thing I keep harping on...the long-term campaign. Individual PCs may die, but only TPK resets the narrative back to 1st level. My whole Me and the DMG thread was about understanding all that "other rando stuff" in the DMG---something that perplexes so many folk---it's all about what happens next, after you've made it past the Berzerk stage.

Which brings me to...

I think people coming back to earlier styles from later styles can confuse character death with character gone. Early D&D often had character death. It also routinely granted the raising of the dead, in return for a service if unable to pay, and wishes were thrown around quite frequently.

The point isn't that characters go poof often, its that they are not saved from danger. Every time you die, there's an increasing chance no one can reach out and take your king out of check. And death is check, not checkmate. If a party doesn't have a dozen+ returns from the dead spread over 4-6 characters, then no, the game is not played in the "old school way". But character death also is often very clarifying to the player as to what is not a Good Idea, in game. It's part of what gave you the knowledge to use in a meta way to become a "superior player". Sure, sometimes the odds are simply not in your favor. But part of the game is tilting the odds in your favor as often as possible.

Yes. Yes! YES! Once again EOTB puts into words what I just take for granted. This is SO true.

Early on, with my kids, they had a TPK event (turned to stone or bleeding-out in a rematch with Lareth in the Evil Temple in B2). Fortunately, they were working with some higher levels NPC...who turned the tide without them and brought them back. I worried, of course, they would take away the lesson that there is always a safety net---but fortunately they absorbed the Nethack lesson and realize that they are currently "on a run" with their high level PCs and overthink/avoid every move that involves risk of dying. They've developed all sorts of healing-contigence-plans, like "Who can use the Staff of Healing if the cleric goes down to bring her back?" or "If I die, stash my body in stasis here...and I'll promise to do the same for you."

So be nice to your fellow players---they are the ones you need to drag your limp body out of the fire (dungeon) OR let you hide behind them until you climb back up (rapidly) in levels! (Incidentally, that's another reason why Story-XP breaks this play style.) Forget Kumbaya, it's in their self-interest too---the party needs to survive in a dangerous world...or it's back-to-level-one narrative-reset for all!

Lethal-ity is almost always associated with a risk you knowingly took (i.e. you fell into a pit because you didn't use your 10' pole!...or even, well, you went into the dungeon with 3hp...). When you die, unless you're an emotional child, 90% of the time you realize that you did it to yourself That's why Byrce keeps going on about telegraphing risks in adventure design---so the players can choose when to gamble! Resource management at the highest level.

Also, this is why I haven't been able to make it to the end of "The Sacrament of Death"...it seems so melodramatic and overblown. Like emo, self-absorbed BS. It's "trad" as in "oh the tragedy!". (zzzzzz...but I will finish it...open tab in browser...)

Similarly, you can extrapolate why individual PC's backstorys (and manner of death) are irrelevant (by and large) when it's collective survival that is key to propelling the narrative.

Actually, I could use an expansion on all of this. Very interesting.

Me too. Good conversation!

 

[squeen]

Also, thinking about @The1True 's issue with self-absorbed players.

Even in small doses that dismantles the OD&D play style. (Let me tell you about MY paladin's backstory...etc.)

And it sounds like, in larger doses, ruins even the later styles that otherwise permits greater character focus.

Maybe it's not so much about role-playing as it is ego and pride.

 

[The Heretic]

You guys are having trouble with "Trad"? Like "traditional"? To me, it meant that this is what the 'traditional' version shook out to be once things finally settled into a pattern in the early 80's.

 

[squeen]

Whew. I never thought of that as "traditional" style. That was always next-gen (post-shift). It had settled post AD&D (e.g. Gencon).
Bad naming choice.

 

[The Heretic]

Well, I could be wrong, but that's the way I took it.

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

'Trad'?
'Ludonarrative dissonance'?

"Trad" is short for "traditional" because that's what its adherents refer to it as. It's the first true culture of play to emerge, and the one most of the others are reacting to. It was also the hegemonic culture of play from the early 80s to the end of the millennium. When Pundit and Levi Kornelson had their big "pistols at dawn" threads in the early / mid-2000s about traditional roleplaying vs. storygames, Pundit was defending this point of view, and there are a ton of other examples of people using "traditional" to refer to specifically this kind of game play. Interestingly, when OSR adherents refer to their vision of Gygax, Arneson et al.'s home play in the very early hobby, they rarely call it "traditional".

"Ludonarrative dissonance" is when the rules and narrative of a game run at cross purposes. Like if you wanted to create a light, zippy pulp story but chose HERO as the system you were going to do it in.