The state of Post-OSR content

[squeen]

Did you confuse me with Malrex? I'm the one that came up with the 10th level fighter example.. Thanks for the compliment. Poor Malrex.

It's funny that you were fixated on the specifics of my example, since I tried to construct it to fit the audience*. In actuality, I was thinking more of...

No, I gave you proper credit for the 10th-level example (above)...but you coughed that up in his defense after I replied to Malrex about the Minotaur and the Vin-Diseal fighter with too much backstory.

So who's confused, old man? (wait, where did I put my reading glasses...??)

As for the other stuff (above), I'm just going to chalk it up to you skimming my diarrhea posts, because it's just lost in the weeds and I'm too tired to try again.

 

[Beoric]

A game where you die all the time and re-roll from among the 7 character classes from B/X would get considerably routine.

Yeah, I'm running one particularly lethal game for a player who likes "building" 4e characters from among a gazillion options. He doesn't mind dying often (well, he got attached to one, but that's what happens when you try to tank with the assassin), because he particularly enjoys character creation. So it never gets old for him. And for me, I'm just running a fairly classical TSR game with a constantly changing roster of party members. Routine avoided all round.

 

[The Heretic]

Yeah, I'm running one particularly lethal game for a player who likes "building" 4e characters from among a gazillion options. He doesn't mind dying often (well, he got attached to one, but that's what happens when you try to tank with the assassin), because he particularly enjoys character creation. So it never gets old for him. And for me, I'm just running a fairly classical TSR game with a constantly changing roster of party members. Routine avoided all round.

That's awesome. Is the character building app for 4e still available at Wizards? I think that'd be super tedious if you had to write this stuff out by hand.

In the intermittent ASE1 campaign I've been running on Roll20, the PCs got smart and instead of creating new character sheets they simply erase the stats, name, and class (and other things as appropriate) if a PC dies.

 

[Beoric]

That's awesome. Is the character building app for 4e still available at Wizards? I think that'd be super tedious if you had to write this stuff out by hand.

In the intermittent ASE1 campaign I've been running on Roll20, the PCs got smart and instead of creating new character sheets they simply erase the stats, name, and class (and other things as appropriate) if a PC dies.

I'm not sure if the online Character Builder is still around. I think there may be a hack of the original offline builder around, but for me I often build them directly in MapTools using a macro some guy built ten years ago.

Also, many classes in the Essentials line of characters are dead easy to build because they were designed for the grognards (who had already given up on the game, so much good it did them). The Essentials fighters, for instance, are about as complicated as a UA-era fighter.

 

[squeen]

Going to say it again---this article is brilliant. So informative to me an how the game evolved in the editions I missed. Bryce's reviews are mentioned. Wish I knew who this guy is.

A Historical Look at the OSR — Part II

Old-school Renaissance / OSR theory and design.

osrsimulacrum.blogspot.com

Here's a nice example:

While I can understand that line of thinking, there's no doubt that the overall effect to moving social interaction to the realm of rules does remove a lot of the freewheeling nature of such.[11] It also further shifted gameplay to the button-pushing mode I referenced earlier. Instead of “I approach the guard with a friendly look on my face. I sympathize with him about the cold and the job, then slip him a few silver and ask if he’ll let us pass”, you tend to get “I use Diplomacy to bribe the guard”. It's easy to sympathize with the designers, who likely never intended for this to happen, but at this point we return to the game design question I opened this post with. "What sort of gameplay does this rule actually create?". The answer always trumps what the text actually says or the intention behind it...

 

[The1True]

Yeah, but what if I want to play a character who is twice as smart as me or twice as charming. I can try to rrrrrrrole play it out, but the DM will find my problem solving or attempts to charm heavily lacking whereas my character would easily be able to negotiate these situations. Definitely the player should make an honest attempt at roleplaying but the rules are there to back the character up with roll playing.

 

[squeen]

That specific argument is in the article. I know you think I'm throwing stones, but really I'm just pointing to a great (and even-handed) article.

He's also got a well-considered and simple hex-crawl mechanic (in PDF!) here

Making Wilderness Play Meaningful — A System

Old-school Renaissance / OSR theory and design.

osrsimulacrum.blogspot.com

 

[squeen]

...whereas my character would easily be able to negotiate these situations.

Let me respond to this.

Sure, that's one way to approach it. But for my tastes that's too abstract to be fun or interesting---it short-circuits the whole social experience. We can't really swing a sword or climb a cliff while sitting in someone's basement...but we can talk (and think). Note: that's coming from someone who doesn't rrrrrole play (i.e. we don't don a character's personality, they are just us intellectually).

Classic D&D style was a way for YOU to quasi-explore an impossible world, using your charm and wits. Remember, wargamers were often intellectual nerds who in no-way-shape-or-form resembled Atlas---but they believed they possessed an above-average brain. Ergo physical tasks in the game got abstracted, but mental ones did not.

Not a judgement that what you say might not suit many people's preferences---just trying to convey that a different mentality existed.

You've said a few times that you and your pals like rolling dice. This hypothetical "typical war-gamer nerd" likes solving puzzles---another early D&D trope (perhaps the central one?). The whole "brains vs. brawn" dichotomy was a much bigger deal back then. Geek-sheik was decades into the future.

 

[Beoric]

Whenever I see the whole "player skill vs character skill" discussion I feel like both sides are missing the point of ability or skill adjudication rolls. The player states the approach he is taking to any problem. If the DM thinks the approach is guaranteed to succeed, then no roll is necessary and it succeeds. If the DM thinks the approach is guaranteed to fail, then no roll is necessary and it fails. The only time any kind of check is necessary is when the DM only thinks there is a chance of success, and then the change is determined by the existing mechanic and the DM's assessment of appropriate modifiers. That is the whole of it.

"I roll for persuasion/diplomacy" is not an approach. The approach depends on what the player says his character is trying to communicate. If under the circumstances what the character is saying would automatically be persuasive then the NPC is persuaded; if it would automatically not be persuasive then the NPC is not persuaded. Note "the circumstances", where results are not plain and obvious, can include factors such as the character's facility with communication, relative social classes, etc. If the DM thinks there is a chance of success but not guarantee, based on the approach and the circumstances, then you roll a persuasion/diplomacy check.

I would like to point out that using "social" skills this way is very similar to the old reaction rolls which (DMG p. 63) also are modified by charisma and also are rolled in response to a character that is speaking. However the 1e reaction roll tables don't have an express adjustment depending on what the PC's pitch is, whereas 4e, for example, expects you to apply situational modifiers depending on approach and to set a DC in accordance with how hard you expect it will be to persuade the NPC.

The author of that article is correct that the construction of a rule can change gameplay (a topic you know is near and dear to my heart). But the construction of a rule changes materially if you change the way it is applied. The fundamental problem with game systems that include skill systems isn't that the systems exist, it is that they rarely explain how to use them properly. Everyone knows how to run a basic dungeon because there are examples of play in, for instance, the 1e DMG and the B/X Basic Rulebook. People are a lot sketchier when it comes to hexcrawls and city crawls because there were no examples in the old rulebooks. Imagine if 1e had included a skill system, and if it was properly presented on p. 96 of the DMG, complete with discussions surrounding approach? Such an example would have changed the way generations looked at skill adjudication.

 

[EOTB]

I would dislike skills less if they weren't character choices. If they were simply game rules covering that sort of action which didn't require selecting a skill with a finite number of skill points to spend, it probably wouldn't be so bad.

In my observation, games where people have characters with skills - the players start actively hunting for stuff they can use the skill on instead of letting the pitch come to them, so to speak. I've seen this so many times. I remember at the outer works of stonehell, 10 minutes into the game, we come across a statue and the player of the magic user started rattling off every lore-type NWP he had to see if any might give extra info.

Nothing in how this was described indicated the statue was special in any way; it was just there, and a character looking at it had skills, and the skills must be used.

I'm sure they can be used better in play than that. But still - get them off the character sheet, get them out of character creation entirely, and then the mechanics might not be a bad thing if its all on the DM side of the screen to help them in that situation.

 

[squeen]

I think both are really good points. As @Beoric says, it took me awhile as a DM to learn when to use reaction rolls---if verbal skills are a stand-in for that, then fine. However, you all know I generally prefer the game-mechanics to be DM-facing to avoid that push-button feel and preserve a sense of immersion and mystery. This author, with his terminology of "push button", really hit the nail on the head with what has always disturbed me about a proliferation of player-facing mechanics/skills but couldn't articulate. It feels like D&D takes a turn toward Monopoly or Risk. I always felt like something magical died a little once it was clear to all it was just a known and clear-cut probability.

I'll also add that my players seem to RELISH when they have to finagle a situation. That back-and-forth with the DM (me) seems to suit their natural desire to win an argument and carry the day. Some of it is "in character" some of is quite "meta". I think that in those moment they feel they have great agency because, as DM, I do allow myself to be persuaded by good solid logic and try to reward cleverness.

It's a good series of articles.

 

[The1True]

I guess skills were a hard swing in the opposite direction in the old 'you can't do that' debate. I fucking hate being told I can't do that by the DM when there aren't concrete rules one way or the other. I can see how many feel we've gone to the opposite extreme with the Player telling the DM that he CAN TOO do that. I like @Beoric 's moderate approach where you should really play it out and have the numbers there to back it up in cases where you need to let the dice decide. 1e-style Attribute rolls sort of have that covered, but a built in skill system allows a player to in effect place bets on what they think they'll need to succeed in their future adventures and stack the odds in their favour.

@EOTB 's example of an MU throwing lore skills at a chunk of dungeon dressing is definitely some crass button-pushing/pixel-bitching. But how the hell is the DM supposed to know that your character is interested in the antiquities. A reminder is always helpful. But most players I know would say "I'm really interested in that statue. I'm going to take a minute to study it." Which gives the DM the chance to hand waive it, assign a quick number to it, ask if the PC has a pertinent skill, or just straight up tell the player there's nothing there without either side having to clobber each other.

I think we're back to talking about that neo-trad, Player-as-god style of play. By the time 3e came along with a concrete Skill system I had suffered enough times at the hands of arbitrary rulings by DM's-as-god that I was ready to move on and never look back. I am seeing many valid arguments here for why that sucked for some people, but any argument that even slightly whiffs of the writer being unhappy at a loss of complete control behind the DM screen is utterly invalid to me. Skills = agency. Take away my agency and I'm walking away from your table.

I'm getting less and less keen on Feats though.

 

[squeen]

...without either side having to clobber each other.

...but any argument that even slightly whiffs of the writer being unhappy at a loss of complete control behind the DM screen is utterly invalid to me. Skills = agency. Take away my agency and I'm walking away from your table.

I think you are getting down to the gist of it. There have been abuses and bad experiences all around. The real solution is for the bad actors to grow-up and behave. All attempt to systematically institutionalize good behavior come with a steep cost and often misfire, or just plain fail. Each revision (starting with 1e!) was an attempt to reign in perceived abuse.

...1e-style Attribute rolls sort of have that covered

The relevant section for the article which I thought was particularly illumination (and leans towards my favorite rant) is:

The Oriental Adventures implementation gave fixed chances of success based on the skill (e.g. all characters succeeded at Hunting on a base roll of 16 or less). The major issue that ran across the Survival Guide implementations, by contrast, is that they were tied to attributes. One of D&D's outright design failures is that it has always warred between having attributes randomly determined in some fashion and the vital importance of attributes in general. OD&D core placed very little value on attributes, but from the release of Supplement I: Greyhawk (1975) onward, attributes starting granting higher bonuses to more things and being required to access more of the available classes. High attributes were also needed to gain the prime requisite 10% XP bonus (even if that was not as valuable as most people assumed). This led to increasingly convoluted rolling methods to “randomly” generate scores while still ensuring high enough scores were generated to keep players happy. When attribute checks started becoming a common task resolution mechanic on top of this, the already important status of attributes skyrocketed.

For 1st edition specifically, the classic "3D6 straight down the line" rolling method was noted in the DMG as suboptimal...

I added the emphasis. But it's that focus on character-maxing that irks me.

Grognardia had a whole series of post on attributes in a wind-up to saying OD&D had it right from the onset.

 

[The1True]

I guess it comes down to if you want to play a game about a superhero, a hero or just a guy. We still use the UA rolling method for our 3.5 game. If you're playing 3d6's down the line; hats off to you. If I rolled up a dude with below average stats using that system, I couldn't personally bear 5 minutes at the table with that one guy with a horseshoe up his ass who rolled an excellent character. I get what you're saying that attributes were less important with the old rules system but 0e lent itself fundamentally to the DM-as-god that I so despise. If your deity was a benevolent one then I'm sure you had a great time, but I'd rather have checks and balances.

Fuck FUCK sorry, I'm straying towards edition wars here.

I think 5e finally curbed the importance of attributes. Our current 3.5e campaign we actually started with the old 4d6 model and everyone (except the guy with the rectal horseshoe) ended up rerolling after 2-3 sessions. Average stats just weren't cutting it in this edition and below average stats were savagely punitive. It was no fun for anybody.

 

[The Heretic]

Geek-sheik was decades into the future.

*ahem* Shouldn't that be Geek Chic?

 

[The Heretic]

Fuck FUCK sorry, I'm straying towards edition wars here.

You rang?

Skills = agency. Take away my agency and I'm walking away from your table.
I'm getting less and less keen on Feats though.

Skills are good, the bigger problem with 3.0+ is that the power curve is too steep. If you start adding in synergies it gets even more ridiculous.

I was toying for a while on revamping the skill and saving throw system. Instead of having skill points et al, you'd be rated is poor/untrained, trained, and good. It would be a straight up d20 roll, 15+ if you are poor, 10+ if you are skilled, 5+ if you are good. Never got around to it.

Saving throws were another one that could get crazy fast. I liked the idea that saving throws were dependent on the level of the caster/etc, but then you'd get things like a DC 12 save for a first level monster's poison, and the player had finagled his character get himself up to +7 on those types of saves. Yeah no.

And feats. Ugh. Feats need to be simplified. They need to stop trying to add crunch by adding feats. No. Just No.

 

[Maynard]

Skills are a pretty reasonable way to adjudicate success or failure in unknown results, it's just too bad that no dnd rulebooks account for degrees of failure or success. This is something that I think Call of Cthulhu does way better at communicating.

 

[Beoric]

But how the hell is the DM supposed to know that your character is interested in the antiquities.

Honestly? That is the practical impact of a character's backstory. I always interpret approaches to actions through what the character would have learned through his background. If you were raised in the woods then your Nature skill is the bomb in the woods but limited in the desert.

4e has a fairly limited list of skills, so some creativity and latitude is required to interpret them. For example, if have seen some modules interpret Dungeoneering as including engineering knowledge. As a rule I think that goes too far; my starting point is that adventurers are trained to be adventurers, and the application of their skills is bey default applicable to adventuring things. But if you are a dwarf and the family business is stonemasony, then I am happy to let you apply your Dungeoneering skill to stonemasonry-related matters.

In my observation, games where people have characters with skills - the players start actively hunting for stuff they can use the skill on instead of letting the pitch come to them, so to speak.

That can happen, but it is greatly mitigated if the player doesn't get to choose what skill applies. For example, if a character is looking for traps by feeling around the edges of the door trim with his fingers, does Perception apply because he has to perceive some difference in the surface he is feeling, or does Thievery apply because changes in the surface only signify anything if you are familiar with the way traps work? It is up to the DM, who knows how the trap works, to make that determination.

It is even better if the skill does not have an automatically associated ability. They toyed with this idea with the 5e playtesting, and I really think they should have run with it; I often improvise it in my 4e game. So Thievery is normally associated with dexterity in 4e, but suppose for the trap above I decide that the skill check should be made with the Thievery skill (because knowledge of traps is important) but as a modifier to an intelligence check (because it helps with the understanding of the mechanism)?

That uncertainty over the adjudication mechanism pushes players to instead choose intelligent approaches, because a good approach can lead to bonuses/lower DCs, or even automatic success. And if you consistently allow clever approaches to result in automatic success, they will start thinking about the approach far more than their skill list. I have found that when I sit a player down and explain to them that this is how I am running the skill system, it completely transforms their approach to the game.

 

[The1True]

Skills are good, the bigger problem with 3.0+ is that the power curve is too steep. If you start adding in synergies it gets even more ridiculous.

Right? I think they addressed this in 5e, but went hard the other way, capping bonuses at +4 or something like that? There's got to be a happy middle ground between that and the +44 my 18th lvl wizard is currently slapping on Knowledge Arcana (fun as it is to be a godlike support character).

And feats should be super fun but I'm finding them an increasingly stressful part of character creation and building. The game really forces you to follow these core feat trees that should just be built into the character and punishes you for taking interesting feats that might let you do a neat trick once in a while. I guess that's why later editions have abandoned them. It was a good idea that went astray.

Going back to my cries of 'AGENCY!!!!' a feat should let the player occasionally stick it to the DM by doing the improbable/impossible without a rules fuss. checks and balances. But they turned into a weapon in the hands of min/maxers. I think that's fine if you've got a group of munchkins like my own where myself and the other DM both like to powergame no matter which side of the screen we're on, but I can see how it was a kick in the dick for the hobby. Every generation gets the edition it deserves?

 

[Johann]

I think that's fine if you've got a group of munchkins like my own where myself and the other DM both like to powergame no matter which side of the screen we're on, but I can see how it was a kick in the dick for the hobby. Every generation gets the edition it deserves?

Agreed. I had a 4e group that was into min-maxing and things went reasonably well as long as the DM had the license to ratchet up the difficulty. It might be interesting to basically make things so hard that min/maxing is the expected baseline -- and synergy between characters becomes the goal!